tv_list_saved_layouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats 'Read-only'. It adds context by naming the underlying API (TradingViewApi.getSavedCharts()) and listing the returned fields, which enriches behavioral understanding beyond the annotations.

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 pack the core purpose, read-only nature, API source, and filter usage. No wasted words; the key action is front-loaded and every clause 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 read-only list tool with all parameters optional and fully documented in the schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and the filter behavior. It does not discuss edge cases or error conditions, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation. It could add a note distinguishing from tv_list_layouts, but that is minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description only reiterates the filter parameter and adds no new semantic value for layout or expect_layout. Baseline of 3 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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'saved chart layouts' of the logged-in account, listing the exact fields returned. It is specific and unambiguous, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tv_list_layouts, so it loses a point on sibling distinction.

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?

Mentions the optional name filter and its case-insensitive substring behavior, which gives a usage hint. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over tv_list_layouts or any other alternative, nor any exclusions. The guidance is present but implicit.

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