inspect_panel

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

With no annotations beyond title, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (rectangle, text, focus, other matches) and behavior (excludes off-screen panels unless onScreen:false). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the find-and-return nature strongly implies no side effects. The practical statistic adds context.

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 a single dense paragraph that packs all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and progressively adds detail. No wasted sentences; every clause earns its place.

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 description covers all parameters and return fields explicitly (rectangle, text, focus, other matches). It lacks an output schema but compensates by naming the return fields. It could mention error behavior when no panel is found, but this is minor. For a simple inspection tool, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions, but the tool description adds significant value: it explains the vgui name concept with examples, clarifies that class is the base type and often generic (e.g., Label, Panel), and interprets the index and contains parameters. This enriches understanding beyond schema alone.

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 explicitly states it finds a panel by name, class, or displayed text and returns detailed info (rectangle, text, focus, other matches). It clearly distinguishes NAME (registered vgui name) from class (base class), making the purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling tools like read_panels.

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 description provides clear guidance: 'NAME is what you want' and warns that searching by class is unhelpful. It also explains the onScreen parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., read_panels for listing), though the context is implied.

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