tab_follow_visible

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important non-side-effects: no tab activation and no chart mutation. It does not say whether the binding persists across later operations, what happens if no visible tab exists, or how failures surface, so coverage of behavior beyond the headline guarantee is incomplete.

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 short sentences with no filler; the primary guarantee is front-loaded and the constraint sentence follows it. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 binding tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it binds to, what it does not touch, and when it is unsafe to call. The remaining gap is the return/confirmation behavior, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The absent schema is correctly left unaddressed.

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 and resource ("attach this MCP connection to the visible TradingView tab") and immediately narrows the scope with "without activating a tab or changing its chart," which implicitly separates it from the tab_switch and tab_list siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast rather than being told.

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?

It gives an explicit timing rule ("call between operations") plus a hard exclusion ("never during a bound drawing run"), which is unusually concrete guidance. What is missing is a positive condition explaining why one would follow the visible tab instead of calling tab_switch or relying on the current binding.

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