list_coverage_topics

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: output includes one-line status, summary, legend, and coverage version; statuses are defined (supported/partial/unsupported/via_transpiler); and it notes the tool is 'Cheap, free, local — no engine run, no I/O.' No contradictions exist.

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 description is front-loaded with the most critical instruction ('START HERE') and packs detailed information (status legend, behavior, sibling references) into a compact, well-structured paragraph. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description thoroughly explains what the tool does, what it returns (list with status and summary), the meaning of each status, and why it should be used first. It covers all necessary context for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not introduce any ambiguity about parameters.

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 the tool lists coverage topics for Pine v6 strategies on PineForge, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools get_coverage_topic and check_pine_feature. It uses the specific verb 'list' and clarifies the resource (coverage topics) and scope (Pine v6 subset).

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 explicitly says 'START HERE before writing, porting, or backtesting a Pine v6 strategy on PineForge' and advises checking coverage first to avoid silent misbehavior. It also names alternatives for deeper drilling: 'drill in with get_coverage_topic' and 'check_pine_feature to look up a single identifier.'

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