Open Pine Editor and verify a unique visible Monaco editor bound to the displayed DOM.
Open Pine Editor and verify a unique visible Monaco editor bound to the displayed DOM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | Yes | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | Yes | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds the useful verification trait (uniqueness and DOM binding check), but it does not say whether opening focuses the tab, what happens if an editor is already open, or what the failure modes are.
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 with no filler. It is efficient, though the verification clause is packed in without elaboration and could be split for clarity.
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 UI-mutating open operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete: it omits prerequisites, what UI state is changed beyond 'open', and how the verification result is surfaced or what failure looks like.
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%, and the schema already explains both target_id and expected_layout_id in detail, including the mismatch-stops-before-write behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Open Pine Editor') plus an observable outcome ('verify a unique visible Monaco editor bound to the displayed DOM'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings such as pine_open_script or pine_get_binding.
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 guidance on when to use this versus pine_open_script or pine_get_binding, nor any stated preconditions such as requiring an active chart tab. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.