ui_open_panel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key trait: SIDE EFFECTS: STATE_MUTATING, altering bottom panel visibility. The LIMITATIONS section bounds the panel set. It doesn't say whether the operation is idempotent or what it returns, but the mutation profile is stated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then labeled WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS sections. Efficient, though the labeled format is slightly verbose for a two-parameter tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, side effects, and supported values. Coverage is solid; only return behavior and failure modes are unaddressed.

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 enums on both parameters, so the schema already documents panel names and actions. The description's supported-panel list merely restates the enum values, adding no syntax or edge-case detail 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?

States a specific action set (open/close/toggle) on a specific resource (bottom dock panels) and enumerates the supported panels, which cleanly distinguishes it from UI siblings like ui_fullscreen and pane_set_layout. An agent can tell at a glance that this controls bottom-panel visibility.

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 clause gives a concrete trigger: call before interacting with Pine Editor or Strategy Tester. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives for the other three panels, but the primary workflow guidance is clear.

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