data_get_pine_lines

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the read-only nature ('Read') and discloses the deduplication behavior and per-study grouping. It stops short of detailing edge cases (e.g., empty results, filtering of only horizontal lines), but the core non-obvious behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, key output behavior, and a parameter usage tip. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and filtering. It does not detail the exact return format (e.g., array of objects with study names), but the schema and description together provide enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a brief usage hint for study_filter ('Use study_filter to target a specific indicator') but does not explain verbose or add semantic depth beyond what the schema provides. This is adequate but not extra informative.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('horizontal price levels drawn by Pine Script indicators (line.new)'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like data_get_pine_labels, data_get_pine_tables, and data_get_pine_boxes. The mention of 'deduplicated price levels per study' further refines the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on what the tool does and how to target a specific indicator via study_filter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, e.g., 'use data_get_study_values for time-series data', so the guidance is clear but not exclusionary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.