romaco_annotate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses visual hierarchy, replacement behavior (group 'romaco-thesis'), leaves user drawings untouched, and the 'stand_aside' guard that prevents false entries.

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?

Description is slightly long but well-structured with front-loaded main action and subsequent details. Each sentence adds value, though minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 parameters and no output schema, description fully covers prerequisites, behavior, side effects, and guard condition. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has no parameters; description correctly adds no param info. Baseline 4 is appropriate since no parameters need explanation.

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 annotates a trade thesis on the chart with visual hierarchy, distinguishing it from siblings like 'romaco_draw_pattern' or 'romaco_thesis_batch'. It specifies the context (support/resistance faint, entry/stop/target bold) and the 'stand_aside' guard.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: requires user acceptance, <McpBridge /> mounted, candles loaded. Mentions re-running replaces previous annotation. Lacks a clear 'when not to use' or alternatives among siblings.

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