get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly frames the operation as a status report (implying read-only) and adds useful behavioral semantics: safe_for_paper_mutation is true when a broker is connected. It does not discuss error cases or exact output shape, but for a status tool the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 states the purpose first, then uses a colon-delimited list of status components. Every phrase adds information, and the mutation-safety clause earns its place as a meaningful behavioral qualifier.

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 simple zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the key returned status categories and explains the important safety flag. It is nearly complete, though exact output formatting or behavior when disconnected is not specified.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-level detail because none exists; nothing about the input schema needs compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource ('TradingView trading status') and enumerates concrete status categories: desktop CDP, auth session, Trading Panel, connection, active broker id, and mutation safety. This distinguishes it from other status-like siblings by listing the exact scope of what is reported.

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 intended use is implied by the definition: call this when you need TradingView connection/auth/broker state. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings like tv_health_check or get_account, and there are no exclusions or alternative routing cues.

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