pine_analyze

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that by capping expectations ('limited,' 'not a proof against repainting'), which prevents the agent from treating the output as authoritative. Return shape is still unexplained, keeping it from 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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the scope caveat trailing. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 should say roughly what the analysis returns (error list, warnings, findings), and it doesn't. Annotations cover the safety profile and the scope caveat covers expectations, but the shape of the result is a real gap for an analysis tool.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description has to compensate but doesn't mention 'source' at all. The parameter name and string type make it reasonably self-evident that Pine source text is expected, and the 1MB maxLength is visible in the schema, but the description adds nothing.

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 and resource (run offline static Pine checks) and sets scope with 'limited.' The clause 'explicitly not a compiler' implicitly separates it from the pine_compile sibling, but it never names pine_check or pine_compile directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'offline static' suggests running without a live editor/binding, and 'not a compiler or a proof against repainting' tells the agent what not to expect from the results. It never states when to call this instead of pine_check or pine_compile.

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