tv_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only) and LIMITATIONS naming the port 9222 remote-debugging prerequisite. This discloses the safety profile and a real operational precondition. It could go further on what happens on failure (error shape), so not a 5.

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 labeled clauses (purpose, WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) with zero filler and the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

Complete for a zero-arg read-only probe: it states what it verifies, when to call it, prerequisites, and that it returns chart state. With no output schema, the exact return shape is only summarily described, a minor gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. No parameter meaning needs adding.

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 ('Verify CDP connection liveness to TradingView Desktop') and adds that it returns active chart state. This distinguishes it from connectivity-adjacent siblings like tv_discover and chart_get_state by being a health/liveness probe.

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 clause: at session start or when diagnosing connectivity failures before attempting chart commands. This names the triggering conditions clearly enough to route against siblings.

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