pine_get_source

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not disclose what happens if no editor is active, whether unsaved buffer changes are included, or the return format. For a simple getter this is likely sufficient, but it leaves some behavioral edges unstated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the verb, resource, and location, making it efficiently scannable for an agent.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: it returns the current Pine Script source from the editor. It is slightly thin around edge cases and sibling differentiation, but for a zero-input getter this is nearly complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage by definition. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameter syntax; it only needs to communicate the purpose, which it does.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource ('current Pine Script source code') plus its location ('from the editor'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pine_set_source (which writes) and pine_get_errors/pine_get_console (which retrieve other data). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives; usage must be inferred from the tool name and the editor scope. While 'current ... from the editor' implies a use case (retrieve the active script source), it does not contrast with pine_list_scripts or other pine_* siblings. This is adequate context but no exclusions, so it falls at the implied-usage level.

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