audit_pine_indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the audit is static/source-level and explicitly warns that it is not proof of non-repainting. It also reveals an important pipeline constraint: results remain restricted until restart-difference validation is recorded. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action, target, and purpose; the second adds the critical limitation and downstream validation dependency. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete enough for an agent to understand when to call the tool, what it does, and what constraints apply to its results. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of 'constructs that can repaint' and the restriction on results gives the agent a reasonable mental model of the output. It could go further by describing the shape of the audit findings, but this is not a serious gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters have useful descriptions: pine_id references list_pine_scripts and version includes a default and regex pattern. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already explains both parameters adequately. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Statically audit one of the user's Pine scripts for constructs that can repaint or make realtime values differ from historical values.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_pine_source or list_pine_scripts, which fetch rather than audit. It also names the exact concern the audit addresses.

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 makes the intended use clear: check a user's Pine script for repaint or realtime/historical divergence risks. It also sets expectations that this is a source-level screening step, not definitive proof, and that results stay restricted until validation is recorded. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-repaint proof, but the distinction between screening and validation is strongly implied.

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