pine_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that by stating it neither overwrites an editor nor creates a saved script — a genuinely useful side-effect disclosure. It also states the return is text, though it could note the non-idempotent nature implied by the annotations.

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 short sentences, the purpose front-loaded and the scoping caveat immediately after; no filler.

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, stating that the result is plain text is the key missing piece and it's present. What the generated template actually contains per kind is left implicit, but nothing essential for invocation is absent.

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 0% and the description says nothing about kind or name. The kind enum values are self-explanatory in the schema, but the meaning of name (script name, file name, or just a label in the template) is left completely unclear.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Return a new Pine v6 template") and pins the version (v6). The negative clause ("does not overwrite an editor or create a saved script") distinguishes it from pine_new_buffer and pine_save_new, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 exclusions imply when this tool is appropriate (you want text, not an open editor or saved script), but no positive trigger or named alternative is given. An agent must infer the choice against pine_new_buffer, pine_open_editor and pine_save_new.

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