Edtb Cf Panels Info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is observational ('Текущая раскладка... состав') and points to Configuration.mdo as the source, implying a read-only inspection. However, it does not state side effects, failure modes, or whether projectPath affects which Configuration.mdo is read.

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 short sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core subject and includes the relevant source file. It could be slightly more explicit about the action, but it is appropriately sized for what it conveys.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still omits any explanation of the sole input parameter and how to target the intended project. For an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool, the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage context leave important gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not mention projectPath or clarify how it is used. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory as a project path, but the description adds no semantics about its role, optionality, null behavior, or relationship to Configuration.mdo. This is a clear compensation gap.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it reports the current panel layout and start-page composition from Configuration.mdo. This is a specific resource and topic, though the action verb is implied rather than explicit. It is clearly distinct from a generic 'panels' tool at a glance, but it does not name or contrast sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edtb_cf_panels or edtb_cf_artifact. No context is given for the expected use case, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be preferred. The description states only what the tool exposes, not when to invoke it.

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