ui_open_panel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the possible actions and panel names from the schema, without disclosing side effects, dependencies (e.g., TradingView must be launched), or state-related nuances of toggling.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers its core behavior. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral caveats that would help an agent decide when to use it, especially given the many sibling UI tools. Without annotations, this is a noticeable gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the panel names and actions, reinforcing the enums but not adding substantial new meaning beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal, but the enums themselves provide the core semantics.

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's function with specific verbs (open, close, toggle) and a specific resource (TradingView panels) with an explicit enumeration of panel names. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ui_click or tv_ui_state.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusion cases, or suggest alternative tools for similar tasks, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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