tv_discover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it declares 'SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only)' and a concrete limitation ('Requires an active, loaded chart page'). It omits any note on what the discovery output actually contains, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three tightly structured sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and labelled usage/side-effect/limitation blocks. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, usage, safety, and preconditions. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned path/method inventory, but that is a modest omission for a debug probe.

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. No parameter explanation is needed and none is missing.

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 (Inspect/discover) and resource (TradingView internal API paths, chart widgets, exposed methods). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the nearby tv_health_check or tv_ui_state, which overlap in the introspection space.

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' block gives a clear condition (debugging Charting API availability, probing internal features). However, it names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so an agent must infer that it is not the tool for normal chart queries.

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