pn_list

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

No annotations provided, so description handles behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a read operation (no destructive hints) and returns a 'summary list', but does not detail what exactly is included (e.g., component names, brief descriptions). The output schema likely fills this gap, so minor missing info.

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?

Three sentences, all essential: states action, explains when to use, and provides a benefit (faster). No fluff, front-loaded with main purpose.

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 simple list tool with 3 optional filter parameters and an output schema, the description conveys purpose and usage context. It could mention filtering capability, but the schema covers that. With output schema present, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description and examples. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Get a summary list of Panel components' and specifies that it returns information without detailed docstring/parameter info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pn_get.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use: 'when you want to browse or discover components without needing full parameter details' and contrasts with get_component (likely pn_get) by noting it's faster and provides only essential info.

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