pine_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably well by explicitly flagging STATE_MUTATING (loads the chosen script into the editor) and a concrete LIMITATIONS constraint. It still omits error behavior and whether opening replaces current editor content.

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 verb+resource, then clearly labeled WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS sections. No wasted prose, and each clause earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, mutation side effect, and a key constraint. Complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around failure behavior.

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%, so the single 'name' parameter is already documented including its case-insensitive matching. The description adds only the constraint that the name must exist in the user library, which is a modest semantic addition over the schema.

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 (open) and resource (saved Pine Script from user library), with the WHEN TO USE line reinforcing that it loads a specific user script into the Pine Editor. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like pine_new (new script) and pine_list_scripts, though it never names them explicitly.

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 clear context: call it to load a specific user script into the Pine Editor. However, it offers no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer that creating a script is pine_new and listing scripts is pine_list_scripts.

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