pane_list

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so explicitly: SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only) and the LIMITATIONS line about requiring a multi-chart layout. It stops short of stating what a single-pane layout returns or whether the list is paginated/ordered, so it is strong rather than complete.

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 tight sentences with labeled WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS sections; the core behavior is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema list tool, the description supplies the return fields, safety profile, and a precondition, which is close to sufficient. It omits ordering/emptiness semantics for a single-pane workspace, leaving a small gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('chart panes') and scope ('current split-view workspace'), and it names the payload returned (active symbols, resolutions, focus state). An agent can distinguish this from pane_focus, pane_set_symbol, and pane_set_layout without opening any schema.

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 WHEN TO USE line gives a concrete trigger: call before manipulating multi-chart layouts to discover pane indices. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. chart_get_state vs pane_list), so it stops short of explicit routing, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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