pine_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool does not compile, works offline, and catches specific error types. However, it does not describe the return value or output format, leaving some ambiguity about how results are presented to the caller.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a key operational detail (offline, no connection). Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid understanding of the tool's function, behavior, and use case. It could be more complete by specifying the return format or providing an example, but given the tool's simplicity, it covers the essentials well.

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?

The input schema provides a full description for the sole parameter 'source' ('Pine Script source code to analyze'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds context about the analysis itself but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Run static analysis on Pine Script code') with concrete detection categories (e.g., array out-of-bounds, unguarded array.first()/last()). It explicitly distinguishes from compilation ('WITHOUT compiling') and indicates offline operation, setting it apart from sibling tools like pine_compile.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: for static analysis without compiling, with the added benefit of working offline and requiring no TradingView connection. It implies that compilation is not needed, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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