pine_open_script

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent, so safety profile is partly covered; the description adds genuinely extra behavior: it verifies exact bound ID, version and full source, and refuses without a clean buffer and binding hash. That explains why destructiveHint is false (it will not clobber a dirty buffer) but leaves out what state the editor buffer ends in and how verification failure is surfaced.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the verification guarantee plus preconditions are front-loaded. The phrasings 'native editor facade' and 'no source-injection fallback' are compact but assume domain context, slightly limiting first-read 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 6-parameter, non-read-only, open-world operation with no output schema, the definition covers preconditions and verification intent but omits what a successful open leaves in the editor and how mismatches/dirty buffers are reported. Those gaps plus undocumented parameters keep it at minimum-viable-plus rather than complete.

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 coverage is only 33% (only target_id and expected_layout_id are documented), so the description must compensate. It does partly — 'bound ID', 'version' and 'binding hash' map to expected_binding_sha256 and version, and 'saved script' implies script_id — but expected_layout_id and timeout_ms get no added meaning, and the hash's role in the verification is only implied.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Open one saved Pine script/version through its native editor facade', which distinguishes it from the in-editor siblings by scoping it to a saved script/version with verification of bound ID, version and source. It never names pine_open_editor or pine_get_saved_source explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from wording alone.

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?

'Requires a clean current buffer and binding hash; no source-injection fallback' gives real preconditions and rules out a fallback path, which is useful usage guidance. However it offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing (e.g. vs pine_open_editor or pine_get_source) and no statement of what to do when the buffer is dirty or the hash does not match.

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