get_panel_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavior around include_sensitive (whether sensitive fields are returned by default), error handling, or return structure. No additional behavioral traits are revealed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It quickly conveys the core operation without wasted words, meeting conciseness standards.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits return values, the meaning of include_sensitive, how panel affects the lookup, and any relative usage context among sibling tools. The agent has schema names but lacks deep guidance for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It adds minimal meaning by clarifying resource_id is numeric and listing valid resource types, but these are already evident from the schema. It does not explain 'panel' or 'include_sensitive', leaving critical parameters under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource types (node, core, host, group, user) and access method (numeric ID), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_panel_resource, but the singular 'by numeric ID' suggests single-resource retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_panel_resource or get_panel_inventory. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or the purpose of include_sensitive, leaving the agent without context on when this tool is appropriate.

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