tv_open_pine_editor

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

The description claims idempotency, but the annotation has idempotentHint: false, creating a direct contradiction. This misleads the agent about the tool's behavior. Score 1 per rules for contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero wasted words. The key information (what it does and idempotency) 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 zero-parameter, no-output tool, the description covers the core action and idempotent behavior. However, the contradiction with annotations slightly undermines completeness, but the description itself is sufficient for the agent to understand usage.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description naturally adds no parameter info, which 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 specifies the action (open) and the resource (Pine Editor panel). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tv_pine_create or tv_pine_save, none of which perform this specific open action.

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 states the tool is idempotent and returns alreadyOpen=true if already open, which guides safe repeated usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives, but given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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