tab_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the new tab becomes active, whether an existing TradingView session is required), permissions, or what happens when no layout is specified. For a tool that creates a tab, these details are important for successful invocation.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the main purpose and the optional capability. There is no redundant information or extraneous detail, making it easy to parse.

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 tool, the description covers the core action and optional layout loading. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must TradingView be open?) and any expected behavior or return values. Since there is no output schema, some additional context would improve completeness, but the tool is relatively straightforward and the description is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates that a saved layout can be optionally loaded. The parameter descriptions in the schema already explain the values for 'layout' and the role of 'name'. Thus, the description adds minimal value here.

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 action and resource: 'Open a new TradingView tab'. It also specifies the optional behavior of loading a saved layout. This differentiates it from sibling tools like tab_switch and tab_list, which handle switching and listing tabs, respectively.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to open a new tab. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is straightforward and the optional layout parameter implies flexibility. The phrase 'Open a new' naturally implies this is not for switching or listing tabs, though it could be more explicit.

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