pine_get_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data source ('Monaco markers'), which implies reading editor state, but doesn't say whether the operation is read-only, whether a prior compilation is required, or what happens when no markers exist. No side effects or failure modes are disclosed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but leaves the agent to infer when compilation errors would exist, what the return format is, and how this fits into the pine workflow among roughly two dozen pine siblings. More context is needed for confident invocation.

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?

With zero parameters and vacuous 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to document. It adds a bit of meaning by naming the source ('Monaco markers'), which clarifies what the parameterless call operates on.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Get Pine Script compilation errors') and names the data source ('Monaco markers'). It clearly indicates a read operation on editor markers rather than an action like pine_compile or pine_check, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus the many related siblings (pine_compile, pine_check, pine_smart_compile, pine_analyze). There is no mention of prerequisites such as compiling first, no exclusions, and no alternatives named.

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