tv_chart_verify

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

The description declares 'Read-only' and 'Best-effort runtime verification', which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true). The 'best-effort' qualifier is informative, though the description does not detail what happens on failure or success.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus 'Read-only.' It front-loads the core purpose with no extraneous 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?

The description covers the main purpose but does not explain return type or behavior when verification fails. With no output schema, the agent lacks information about what result to expect, which is a gap for a verification 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'plots/labels/tables' which aligns with parameter names (expectedPlots, expectedLabels, expectedTables) but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 specifies a clear action (verify) and resource (indicator and expected plots/labels/tables on a chart). It distinguishes from siblings like tv_ensure_chart (which ensures chart existence) and tv_indicator_add (which adds indicators) by focusing on runtime verification of indicator presence.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given, leaving the agent to infer from the name and purpose alone.

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