list_panels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful insight: 'without exposing credentials', which indicates a security-focused behavior. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it) or mention any other side effects or access requirements. This provides some value but leaves gaps.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, including the security qualifier. This is an example of concise, effective structure.

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 tool with zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It fully specifies the function (listing configured panel profiles) and the key constraint (no credential exposure). No additional context is necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters and is fully covered by the schema itself (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information because none are needed. With zero parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate, as there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'configured PasarGuard panel profiles', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_panel_inventory or test_panel by focusing on profile listing without exposing credentials.

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. While the name and description imply a basic listing operation, the description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit direction on selecting this tool over its siblings.

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