list_panel_resource

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions query filters/pagination, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return shape looks like, or whether pagination has limits. The ambiguous 'List one' further obscures expected behavior.

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 short (two sentences), but the first sentence essentially restates the tool name and the second is vague. It's concise in word count but lacks substance, so it does not earn full credit for efficient communication.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description critical for completeness. It fails to explain the query structure, the meaning of each resource type, return values, or how this differs from the similar get_panel_resource sibling. The description is inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints that 'query' supports filters/pagination; 'panel' and 'resource' are left completely unexplained beyond their types. The resource enum helps marginally, but overall the description adds minimal value to the schema.

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 says 'List one PasarGuard panel resource', but 'one' is ambiguous—it could mean a single resource instance or a single resource type. The mention of filters/pagination suggests it actually lists multiple items of a given resource type, contradicting 'one'. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling get_panel_resource.

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 like get_panel_resource or list_panels. The only hint is that the query supports 'normal filters/pagination', but this is not actionable and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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