tv_list_layouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the paint probe runs one requestAnimationFrame per tab, which is a side effect an agent should know about despite the read-only nature. This is useful transparency.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core listing behavior and return fields are front-loaded, and the read-only note plus the paint probe detail are appended efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned and the one behavioral side effect. It could arguably mention that the output is a list of tabs, but the verb 'List' and the enumerated fields make that clear. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because the description enumerates the fields.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden to compensate for. The description fully explains what the tool returns, which is the only semantic content an agent needs. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every open TradingView chart tab') and enumerates the exact fields returned (index, layout id, title, url) plus the active/painting status. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tv_list_saved_layouts, which lists saved layouts rather than open tabs.

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 makes clear this is for open chart tabs and identifies the active one, which implies it should be used when an agent needs to know which tabs are open and which is painting. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list (tv_list_saved_layouts) is implicitly differentiated by the word 'open' and 'chart tab'.

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