pinescript_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions enhanced semantic matching and streaming support, which are behavioral traits. It does not disclose explicit safety or side effects, but the search nature implies read-only, and the added detail is valuable.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently adds key differentiators (semantic matching, streaming). No wasted 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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters (fully described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspect (enhanced matching, streaming). However, it does not differentiate from siblings or explain return structure, leaving a slight gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema; 'synonym expansion' echoes the query description, and streaming is noted but already in format default. No significant new parameter insight.

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 it searches PineScript documentation with added semantic matching and streaming support, distinguishing it from sibling tools like syntax_compatibility_validation or pinescript_review.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, such as pinescript_review or syntax_compatibility_validation. The description implies it is for documentation lookup but does not provide exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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