collapse_panels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the scrcpy session prerequisite, which is useful context beyond what annotations provide. The tool mutates UI state but the description clarifies the action is collapsing (reversible, non-destructive), consistent with the idempotent and non-destructive hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the purpose and a key prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the primary action and includes the critical scrcpy session requirement efficiently. Minimal waste, though it could arguably structure the prerequisite as a separate clause for clarity.

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 UI action tool with good annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint), full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the target panels and the one critical prerequisite. Given complexity is low and annotations carry significant weight, this is adequate without extensive additional detail.

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% with the single 'serial' parameter fully described as 'Device serial number'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 tool name 'collapse_panels' combined with the description 'Collapse all open panels (notification, settings)' clearly identifies the verb (collapse) and resource (panels). It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like expand_notifications and expand_settings by specifying it targets both notification and settings panels. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from a potential per-panel collapse tool, though none exists among siblings.

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 states '(requires active scrcpy session)', which is an important prerequisite and implies context for when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools. Setting the collapse action for both notification and settings panels clarifies scope but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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