tv_compatibility_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool reports (Desktop version and missing capabilities) but does not mention whether it makes API calls that could fail, whether it requires specific permissions, whether any side effects occur, or what the output structure looks like. For a diagnostic tool, this lack of safety context is a notable gap.

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 two sentences long and uses no filler. The first sentence orients the tool as a canary for critical APIs, and the second precisely states the output (version + missing capabilities). Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a fundamental sense of what it does. However, it leaves out important contextual details: it does not explain the format of the report, how to interpret results, or how it differs from closely related tools like tv_capability_matrix and tv_compatibility_snapshot. The term 'Canary' and 'TVControl' are jargon that may confuse an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. It also makes sense that a compatibility check would take no input, relying on environment state. The description adds sufficient context about what the tool checks without needing parameter details.

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 is a 'Canary for critical TradingView internal APIs' and that it 'Reports the Desktop version and exactly which required capabilities are missing.' This gives a specific verb ('Reports') and resource (TradingView internal APIs / TVControl). It is distinct enough from siblings like tv_health_check, but does not explicitly differentiate from tv_capability_matrix or tv_compatibility_snapshot.

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 phrase 'Canary' implies it is used as an early check for compatibility before using TVControl, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternative tools for compatibility checks, leaving the choice among tv_compatibility_check, tv_capability_matrix, and tv_compatibility_snapshot ambiguous.

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