read_panels

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

The description implies this is a read-only operation by describing the returned data, but it does not explicitly state the behavior (e.g., no side effects). Annotations only include title, so the description carries the full burden but omits explicit read-only/destructive hints.

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 long sentence packed with information but could be restructured for better readability. It front-loads the main purpose but then adds details in a somewhat rambling manner.

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?

While the description details the returned fields, it ignores the maxDepth parameter, leading to incomplete understanding. No output schema exists, and the description does not clarify the tree structure format (flat vs nested), causing potential confusion.

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?

The only parameter, maxDepth, is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to explain its meaning or default behavior, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 states the tool returns a Derma/VGUI panel tree with specific fields (class, name, visibility, size, position). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the exact attributes and coordinates, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides guidance on filtering by on_screen and interpreting screen_x/screen_y for clicking or capture regions. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context it provides helps the agent decide, e.g., using inspect_panel for a single panel.

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