pine_list_scripts

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 declares SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only) and LIMITATIONS: Requires user to be logged in. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the safety and auth profile are clearly disclosed.

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 purpose sentence followed by labeled WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and auth requirements. It falls short only in not hinting at what identifiers the returned list contains (e.g., script names or IDs) for use with pine_open.

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. The description provides no parameter semantics to add, and none are needed.

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-saved Pine Scripts in TradingView personal library), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pine_open. An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only inventory operation.

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?

Explicitly says to call it before opening a script with pine_open, which gives clear context and names the alternative. It lacks a when-not condition or exclusions, but the primary usage is unambiguous.

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