List Pine coverage topics

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds operational context they cannot: cheap, free, local, no engine run, no I/O. It also defines the status vocabulary's real meaning (via_transpiler works end-to-end; unsupported means refused/no-effect/halting at value read), which is behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 action-relevant instruction is front-loaded and every sentence carries routing or caveat value. The long inline parenthetical explaining the legend and status semantics is somewhat heavy for a description, since the tool itself returns that legend, but it prevents misinterpretation of the results.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in and describes the return payload precisely: topics with status plus summary, the legend, and the coverage version. Combined with the routing to two sibling tools, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 — baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level guidance is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists every coverage topic with a one-line status... plus the legend... and the coverage version') and frames the server's constraint (PineForge implements a SUBSET of Pine v6). An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_coverage_topic (per-area drill-down) and check_pine_feature (single identifier lookup).

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('START HERE before writing, porting, or backtesting a Pine v6 strategy') and gives the rationale (avoids a strategy that compiles but silently misbehaves). It then names both alternative siblings and the exact condition that selects each one.

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