tv_pine_autofix

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, which the description reinforces with 'DESTRUCTIVE: may save and add to chart'. It adds valuable behavioral details: the workflow (static rules first, then optional LLM), the need for API keys (OPENAI_API_KEY/ANTHROPIC_API_KEY), and how to disable destructive behavior for read-only diagnostics. This goes beyond the annotation while not contradicting it.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Autonomous Pine Script repair loop'), followed by the workflow, a safety warning, and a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 complex tool with six parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description adequately covers the key behavioral and safety aspects: the workflow, destructive nature, and read-only mode. It could be slightly more explicit about the return status or success/failure indication, but the 'verifies' step implies checking, and the main effects are the save/add-to-chart actions.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful context for autoSave and autoAddToChart by explaining that setting them to false enables read-only diagnostics, which is not present in their schema descriptions. This extra semantic clarifies the purpose of these flags beyond their default values.

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's purpose as an 'Autonomous Pine Script repair loop', specifying the exact workflow: reads source, compiles, applies static rules, optionally calls an LLM, patches errors, saves, adds to chart, and verifies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tv_pine_patch, tv_pine_compile_errors, and tv_pine_quick_fix.

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 provides clear context: it is an autonomous repair loop, and it includes a specific usage tip for read-only diagnostics by setting autoSave/autoAddToChart=false. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (e.g., tv_pine_patch for manual patching), so it stops short of full when-to-use vs when-not guidance.

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