pine_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the tool does not compile, works offline, and targets specific static-analysis issues. It does not mention whether the analysis is read-only or what kind of output is returned, but the described behavior is clear and non-misleading.

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 a single, dense sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the distinctive details ('WITHOUT compiling', 'Works offline') plus specific checks follow naturally without wasting 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?

For a tool with one simple string parameter and no nested objects, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The main gap is the lack of stated return format or behavior for valid code, but the description's phrase 'catches ...' strongly implies diagnostic output, which may be enough for this simple tool.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter with high coverage ('Pine Script source code to analyze'). The description reinforces that the source is Pine Script code but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Run static analysis on Pine Script code') and lists concrete diagnostic categories (array out-of-bounds, unguarded array.first()/last(), bad loop bounds, implicit bool casts). It distinguishes itself from compiling tools by saying 'WITHOUT compiling', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling pine_check.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for static analysis, works offline, and does not require a TradingView connection. It implies this is a faster/safer alternative to compiling but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like pine_compile or pine_check.

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