pine_get_errors

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

The description adds the source 'Monaco markers,' which provides context beyond the name. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires a prior compile, or what happens if no errors exist. The word 'Get' implies safety but is not explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It is concise and free of unnecessary words, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is clear but incomplete due to the lack of an output schema. It does not mention the return format (e.g., an array of error strings or structured objects), which is significant for an agent deciding how to use the result. The overall simplicity of the tool keeps it from being a lower score.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema trivially covers 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it adds no contradictions.

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 the tool gets Pine Script compilation errors from Monaco markers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pine_get_console and pine_compile by specifying the exact source and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., after compilation) or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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