diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a real side effect: it launches the desktop app briefly, and it yields no chart contents. However, it doesn't clarify whether the app is closed afterward, whether prerequisites (app installed, login) are required, or what failure modes exist — meaningful gaps for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the key behavior (brief start) is front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently rules out an expectation about return contents, though the first sentence's phrasing is slightly awkward.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly notes no chart contents are returned. But it leaves the 'layout' parameter undefined and gives no explicit usage ordering relative to capture_start, so it is only adequately complete for this diagnostic 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 sole required parameter 'layout' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what 'layout' refers to or its expected values. The description therefore does not compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: briefly launch TradingView Desktop and report on internal path availability for a capture. The line 'Returns no chart contents' helps differentiate it from capture-oriented siblings like capture_start, though the phrasing 'which internal paths a capture needs are available' is slightly garbled.

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?

Usage as a preflight/diagnostic check before a capture is only implied by 'briefly' and 'Returns no chart contents.' No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., capture_start, capture_status) is given, leaving the agent to infer the ordering.

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