list_pine_scripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: 'Read-only' declares the safety profile, 'user's own saved' restricts scope, and the usedBy cross-referencing behavior is disclosed. For a zero-parameter list operation, the key behavioral traits are covered, though details like pagination or empty-result behavior are absent.

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, each earning its place: the first states purpose and return payload, the second routes to the downstream consumer, the third declares safety. The main purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return values (pine_id, kind, version, usedBy), and it also covers scope and safety. For a simple, parameterless list tool the definition is complete enough, though it doesn't mention potential pagination limits or behavior when the user has no saved scripts.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify; the description instead uses the space to explain what the output contains, which is the more relevant information for this tool.

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 names a specific verb (List), resource (user's own saved Pine scripts), and the exact return fields (pine_id, kind, version, usedBy). The chart cross-reference detail ('usedBy shows which on-chart indicators are rendered from each script') makes the purpose precise and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like get_pine_source or save_pine_script.

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?

'Use this to find the pine_id for get_pine_source' gives an explicit, concrete use case and routes the agent to the downstream sibling that consumes this tool's output. It provides clear context but stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives to avoid.

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