tv_compatibility_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that baselines are immutable and that results are reported separately for critical failures and informational drift. However, it does not explain state-changing behavior (e.g., whether 'record' persists data, side effects, or reversibility), which is important for a tool with a 'record' action.

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 concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's core function and a key reporting distinction. No filler or repetitive content; every phrase 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 description adequately covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on expected return values, output structure, or when the 'overwrite' flag matters. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete about what 'reported separately' means in practice, though the tool is relatively simple with only two parameters.

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% for both parameters ('action' and 'overwrite'), with clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 the tool records, compares, or lists immutable per-version TradingView API compatibility baselines, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tv_compatibility_check and tv_capability_matrix by emphasizing the snapshot/immutability aspect and separate reporting of critical failures vs informational drift.

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 implies its usage for recording, comparing, or listing baselines, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like tv_compatibility_check or tv_capability_matrix. There are no clear exclusions or alternatives mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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