pine_list_scripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the pagination behavior (returns a page) and hints at filtering, which is useful. But it does not disclose return format, ordering, or potential side effects. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. The pagination caveat and name_filter hint are packed efficiently. This is ideal conciseness.

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 tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the expected response structure. It also doesn't mention ordering or error behavior. For a listing tool, an agent might infer the result shape, but it's not fully specified.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the insight that the tool returns a page, which reinforces the purpose of limit and offset, and mentions name_filter for finding by name. This is a modest addition over the schema but not substantial.

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 verb ('List') and the resource ('saved Pine Scripts'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also notes pagination behavior, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling list tools like draw_list or alert_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It provides context on pagination ('Returns a page') and hints at the name_filter parameter for searching by name. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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