open_mod_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: 'It presses nothing and uploads nothing,' i.e. it is side-effect free and safe. However, it omits other relevant behavior — whether an editor session/connection is required, what happens if the panel is already open, and whether anything is returned.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the safety caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema UI action, the description covers what it does and that it has no side effects, which is the essential information. Only minor gaps remain, such as the editor-session precondition and idempotency when the panel is already open.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Open the editor's Mod Management Tool'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like create_mod, package_mod, and list_mods, which manipulate data rather than surface UI. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, but the action is unambiguous.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. editor must be running, panel already open). The closest thing to guidance is the negative scoping in the second sentence, which tells the agent what the tool won't do rather than when to choose it.

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