pine_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that compilation happens server-side, does not require a chart, and returns errors/warnings. This gives an agent a reasonable mental model of the tool's behavior, though it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or whether any state is modified.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The most important differentiating detail—'without needing the chart open'—is front-loaded.

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 a single string parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, behavior, and return type. It does not detail the error/warning return structure, but it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for validation.

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 fully documents the single 'source' parameter as 'Pine Script source code to compile/validate', and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Since schema description coverage is 100%, 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 compiles Pine Script via TradingView's server API and returns compilation errors/warnings. The phrase 'without needing the chart open' distinguishes it from chart-dependent sibling tools like pine_compile or pine_set_source. This is a specific verb+resource description that an agent can act on immediately.

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 a clear use case: validating code before injecting it into the chart, and notes that no open chart is required. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guideline.

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