pn_params

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns parameters for exactly one component, errors on multiple matches, and is lighter than pn_get. Missing explicit behavior for no-match case, but overall adequately transparent.

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?

Description is three short paragraphs, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose line, usage guidance, and important constraint on multiple matches. No unnecessary 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 the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and three optional parameters with good schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, usage, and error behavior. Minor gap: no mention of behavior when no component matches. Overall very 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear meaning for each parameter (name, module_path, package). The tool description does not add significant extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'parameter information for a single Panel component (without the docstring)'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'pn_get' by noting it is lighter and does not include the docstring.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when you only need parameter details... already know the component exists.' Compares to sibling 'pn_get'. Also warns about error when multiple components match, helping the agent select appropriately.

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