get_pine_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers key behavior: read-only, no editing/saving, and refusal of published/protected third-party scripts. It does not go into error cases, rate limits, or response format, but the core constraints are explicit and not hidden.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope lead off, followed by compact restriction and read-only statements. Every sentence adds a distinct, necessary fact.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers the target object, eligibility, read-only nature, and parameter constraints via the schema. Missing explicit error behavior or return format are minor for this simplicity, keeping it a step below complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the pine_id eligibility rule (USER-only, third-party refused) and the version default is already in the schema. The 'revert a bad save' insight appears in the schema, not the description, so the description adds little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action ('Get the full Pine source code') scoped to the user's OWN saved scripts, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_pine_scripts (which lists script metadata) and save_pine_script (which writes). The added restriction against published/protected third-party scripts sharpens the tool's identity.

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 states the eligibility rule: only 'USER;...' ids from list_pine_scripts are accepted and third-party scripts are refused. It also disclaims editing/saving support. It does not name a specific alternative tool for editing, but the read-only note and referenced list_pine_scripts give enough context for correct selection.

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