pine_check

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context by naming the external guest compile endpoint and warning not to infer success from empty diagnostics, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or return behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, packing purpose and success criteria together. It is dense but appropriately concise.

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 compile/check tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values or how target_id and expected_layout_id affect invocation, so an agent lacks enough context to use the tool confidently beyond the required source input.

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 description references the supplied Pine source, but adds no details beyond the schema. With 67% schema description coverage, target_id and expected_layout_id are partly documented by the schema, and the description does not compensate for the undescribed source parameter.

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?

The description states a specific action: submitting supplied Pine source to TradingView’s guest compile endpoint, with a clear success condition. It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like pine_compile or pine_analyze, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description implies this is a compile/check operation, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus pine_compile, pine_analyze, or pine_get_errors. It also omits exclusions or prerequisites.

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