draw_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and explicitly declares 'SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only)' plus a real scope limitation (user drawings only, not Pine script drawings). It omits any mention of result volume or pagination, which is a minor gap for a listing tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by clearly labeled WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS sections. Every sentence carries information; nothing is restated from the name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, what is returned, the safety profile, and the user-vs-Pine scope boundary.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify. The description instead describes the shape of the result (IDs, types, coordinates), which is useful but not a param concern.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (user drawing shapes and annotations on the chart) and even enumerates the returned fields (entity IDs, types, coordinates). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like draw_shape, draw_clear, draw_remove_one, and draw_get_properties.

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 'WHEN TO USE' clause gives an explicit trigger: call before modifying or deleting drawings to locate drawing IDs. It does not, however, name an alternative (e.g. draw_get_properties) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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