app_list_panels

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explains that the default operation reports visible docked panels, that `offered_too` requires a real menu click and steals focus, and that an empty result can occur because panels are found by tab and may be reported empty on AD 25. These are exactly the side effects and caveats an agent needs before invoking it.

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 front-loaded and organized into clear prose, Args, and Returns sections. It is slightly long for a one-parameter list tool, but nearly every sentence adds useful distinction, caveat, or parameter context.

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?

The tool's complexity is modest, and the description covers the key distinctions, optional behavior, side effect, and empty-list caveat. Since an output schema exists, the return format need not be explained, but the description still provides useful confirmation of the response shape and caveats.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates for the single parameter by explaining that `offered_too` reads what View > Panels lists, representing what could be opened rather than what is open. It also explains the focus-stealing consequence and confirms the default is off.

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 identifies the resource as Altium's currently visible dockable panels and explicitly distinguishes it from `app_list_open_dialogs` by explaining that panels are child windows, not top-level dialogs. The examples of Projects, Navigator, PCB, Properties, and Messages make the scope concrete.

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?

It gives a clear usage distinction against `app_list_open_dialogs`, explaining why that sibling missed docked panels. It also clarifies when to enable `offered_too` for potentially openable panels versus currently open panels. It does not explicitly route to related tools like `app_read_panel`, but the primary usage context is well established.

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