tv_capability_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool performs a mapping and reports availability, but does not mention potential side effects of probing the live runtime, whether it is read-only, or that it may be slow. The `probe` parameter implies runtime interaction, but the description omits this.

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 that conveys the core function and output without any filler or redundant phrasing. Every word adds value.

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 has two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and outcome at a high level, but lacks detail about the returned matrix structure, the meaning of 'available or blocked', and any runtime behavior like caching or probing. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a diagnostic tool in a large sibling context.

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%, so the parameters `force` and `probe` are fully documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but given the high coverage, 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 clearly states a specific action ('Map every TVControl tool to its required TradingView APIs') and the output ('report which tools are currently available or blocked'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tv_health_check by focusing on the tool-to-API capability matrix, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 such as tv_compatibility_check or tv_discover. The description only states what the tool does, with no context for choosing it over other diagnostic tools or mention of prerequisites.

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