transpile_pine

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

No annotations provided, but description covers key behaviors: local operation, no network, no API key, returns text. Does not mention error handling or prerequisites like Docker availability, but adequate given context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes key selling points and guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Complete for a simple transpile tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. Covers purpose, privacy, and alternative tool. Could mention error scenarios, but not necessary for basic use.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool transpiles PineScript v6 to C++ locally using a bundled transpiler. It distinguishes from sibling 'backtest_pine' by noting the alternative use case.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (transpile to C++ locally) and provides a clear alternative ('Use backtest_pine if you also want to run the strategy'). Lacks explicit exclusion but sufficient for typical use.

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