pine_get_script_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavioral traits: it cannot destroy unsaved work and cannot mis-bind the editor. This reassures safety for a read operation, though it does not detail error behavior or response format.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and safety/behavioral context added in a second sentence. No words are wasted, and the contrast with the editor buffer 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 simple one-parameter read operation, the description is complete: it states what is read, what the tool avoids, and why an agent would use it. The parameter schema covers input details, and the resource itself makes the return value obvious.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single 'name' parameter is already well documented with case-insensitivity and ambiguity handling. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Read a saved Pine Script's source.' It also distinguishes itself from editor-buffer operations by explicitly saying it does so 'WITHOUT touching the editor buffer,' which separates it from siblings like pine_get_source and pine_set_source.

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 use cases: compare a saved script against a local file or audit what is deployed. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for reading the editor buffer or an exact when-not-to-use condition, but the editor-buffer contrast implies the boundary.

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