list_saved_strategies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation and mentions the flagging output, but it doesn't explicitly address auth requirements, side effects, or limitations. The description adds some context beyond the raw tool name but is not richly transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every sentence contributes value: the first states what the tool does, the second provides the key use case. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose, use case, and relationship to create_strategy_alert. It lacks a detailed return format explanation, but for a straightforward listing tool, the 'flagging which are strategies' hint is sufficient for an agent to infer expected output.

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 100% with a clear description for the single optional parameter 'strategies_only' ('Exclude indicators and libraries. Default true.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists Pine scripts saved on the TradingView account and flags which are strategies. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_alerts, and it explicitly ties to create_strategy_alert.

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 gives clear context: use this to find the exact name to pass to create_strategy_alert, and notes that only strategies can drive a strategy alert. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but it provides strong situational guidance.

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