Open the live day panel

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the panel is loopback-only, token-guarded, and that interactions write to the plan store and report as panel_activity on the next 'plan_day' call. This sufficiently informs the agent of side effects and security constraints.

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 dense sentence that fronts key information (local panel, token-guarded, features, side effects). While efficient, it could be broken into two sentences for clarity, but overall no wasted words.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, and return value (URL) adequately. It mentions interaction side effects with 'plan_day', providing sufficient context.

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?

Only one parameter (date) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds context that the default is today, but the schema already provides the format. No additional semantic nuance beyond 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 clearly states the tool starts a local web panel for the day, with specific features (checkboxes, to-dos, objectives, note box). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'plan_day' and 'read_plan' by emphasizing interactive panel behavior.

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 advises giving the returned URL to the user or opening it for them, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is well-defined.

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