tv_discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a reporting/inspection operation, implying a read-only nature, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, potential side effects, or response structure. The description is not contradictory but adds limited behavioral context beyond the functional statement.

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 11 words in a single sentence, immediately stating the tool's purpose. Each word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters and no annotations—the description sufficiently communicates the core function. It could be enhanced by explicitly stating the return format, but for a discovery report, the purpose is clear enough to be considered largely complete.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. According to the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4; the description does not need to compensate for missing 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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'known TradingView API paths', including the detail that it covers their availability and methods. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tv_health_check or tv_compatibility_check, which focus on health and compatibility.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as tv_health_check or tv_capability_matrix, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without contextual recommendations.

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