run_panel

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

The description discloses that the tool runs through am_i_cited, appends a snapshot, stores it at a path, and feeds citation_trend. However, it lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., panel existence), rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides additional details on storage and downstream use efficiently.

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 explains the output is a snapshot file stored in a specific path, but with no output schema, it does not describe the snapshot's contents or format. For a tool that integrates with citation analysis, more detail on the snapshot's structure would improve completeness.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds that the 'name' parameter must be a panel saved via track_queries, which is helpful. But for 'domain' and 'engine', it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool runs a saved panel through am_i_cited, appends a timestamped snapshot, and specifies the snapshot storage path. It distinguishes from siblings by naming specific tools it integrates with (am_i_cited, citation_trend).

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 implies usage for running a previously saved panel via track_queries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_citations or citation_evidence. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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