pane_get_sync

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful caveat that sync controls are only read 'when available', hinting at conditional/native-platform-dependent coverage, but it does not say whether absence yields an empty result, an error, or partial fields. The non-idempotent hint on a pure read is unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the controlled facets without padding. It is appropriately sized; only the vague 'when available' clause costs it a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears responsibility for hinting at the return shape (presumably a per-facet boolean/settings object), yet it never does. Combined with the unexplained 'when available' condition and the missing relationship to pane_set_sync, a caller knows roughly what it reads but not what it gets back.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about target_id or the unusual expected_layout_id guard on a read-only tool, which an agent might reasonably find confusing given the schema text mentions 'before writing'.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the exact resources: symbol, timeframe, crosshair, time and date-range synchronization controls. This clearly separates it from the mutating sibling pane_set_sync by verb alone. The only weakness is the trailing hedge 'when available', which leaves the scope slightly fuzzy.

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?

There is no explicit instruction on when to call this versus alternatives such as pane_set_sync, chart_get_state, or the other pane_* readers, and no prerequisites (e.g. a chart must be open, a pane focused). The phrase 'when available' implies the control may not exist in all chart configurations, but the agent is not told what to do in that case.

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