pine_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the external side effect (source code is sent to TradingView's cloud compiler) and the hard limitation (active internet connection required). It omits whether authentication/credentials are needed and whether the code leaves the machine permanently, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and uses labeled WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS blocks that are easy to scan. Minor redundancy ('without touching the UI' plus 'headless') costs it the top score.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, return content, trigger condition, side effect, and network limitation. The only meaningful gap is how it differs from sibling compile tools, which an agent needs in order to choose correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'source' as the Pine Script code to compile. The description adds no format, size, or version constraints beyond that, making this the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Compile Pine Script via TradingView remote compiler API') and adds what it returns (compilation errors and warnings), which lets an agent distinguish it from a plain compile call. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close siblings pine_compile, pine_smart_compile, or pine_get_errors, so the purpose is clear but sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' guidance: headless validation of Pine Script before opening the editor or chart. This gives a clear trigger condition, but it never names the alternatives (pine_compile / pine_smart_compile) or states when NOT to use it, so routing between the three compile tools remains ambiguous.

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