app_read_panel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the operation is non-focus-stealing and non-mutating, warns that the read is complete but slow with concrete numbers (lazy accessible tree, ~116 ms per node, 162 rows ≈ 30 s), and justifies the tradeoff ('slow and complete beats fast and partial'). That latency warning is the single most decision-relevant fact for an agent and would otherwise be invisible.

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-loads purpose, then precondition, then cost, then return shape — a sensible order with no filler. Minor redundancy in 'takes no focus and moves nothing' (two phrasings of the same non-intrusiveness point) and the parenthetical return block is longer than needed given an output schema exists.

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 read tool with no annotations, one parameter, and an existing output schema, this covers safety, prerequisites, cost, and even why grids are reported separately. The only real hole is the undocumented `name` argument, which is the one thing the agent must supply to call it successfully.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required `name` parameter, and the description never explicitly says the parameter is the panel name that comes from app_list_panels (or what format/identifier it takes). The connection is strongly implied by the workflow guidance, but an agent still has to infer the argument's source and shape.

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 verb and resource ('Read what is inside an open panel') and immediately scopes it ('Reads the WHOLE panel'), which separates it from partial-read siblings like app_read_window or app_ui_snapshot. It also names the related tools (app_open_panel, app_list_panels) so the agent can place it in the workflow without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('The panel must already be open') and names the exact alternatives to satisfy it ('use app_open_panel first, or app_list_panels to see what is there'). It also states the operating condition where this is appropriate ('safe while a user is working'), leaving no inference needed about when to reach for it.

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