tv_health_check

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool checks the CDP connection and returns chart state, implying a read-only health check, but it doesn't describe failure behavior, side effects, or any required preconditions like being connected. This leaves the agent uncertain about edge-case behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action and return value. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter schema and the simplicity of a health check, the description covers the main purpose and return. However, without an output schema or annotations, it doesn't specify the format or success/failure indicators of the returned chart state, and there's no mention of how this relates to the many sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but incomplete for an agent that needs to verify connection health or interpret results.

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 has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter details. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately stays silent on parameters.

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 ('Check') and names the resource ('CDP connection to TradingView'), and also states the return value ('current chart state'). However, it doesn't differentiate it from siblings like connect, get_status, or chart_get_state, so it's clear but not distinct.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect or get_status. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the usage context to inference.

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