sc:business-panel

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'adaptive interaction modes' but does not explain what these modes are, how behavior changes, side effects, auth requirements, or response format. This leaves critical gaps for informed invocation.

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 one sentence with a parenthetical tag, making it concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded with core purpose but lacks detail. It could be restructured to include more information 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain 'multi-expert' details, mode differences, return values, or prerequisites. With many sibling tools, more contextual differentiation is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds some context by listing available flags and valid agent values, but it largely restates schema info. It does not provide deeper meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 specifies 'multi-expert business analysis with adaptive interaction modes,' which indicates the purpose is business analysis with a collaborative approach. It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like 'sc:analyze' by implying a multi-expert method, but the term 'business analysis' remains broadly defined.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tag 'Priority: IMPORTANT' only indicates urgency, not usage context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions are given.

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