OpenPanel: Get client

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

The description labels this as a 'Get' (a read), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. An agent cannot know whether calling this mutates state, rotates a client secret, or is simply mis-annotated. The 'root mode' note is useful context, but the read-vs-destructive conflict leaves behavior genuinely ambiguous.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action stated first and the prerequisite second; nothing is padded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is opaque jargon that costs a little clarity without adding meaning.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is thin: it documents neither parameter, gives no indication of what 'client details' contains, and its read framing conflicts with a destructive annotation. An agent could invoke it but could not predict the payload or the side effects.

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 both required parameters. 'client_id' is largely self-explanatory, but 'site' is undefined in both the schema and the description, and the description adds no meaning about format, expected values, or whether 'site' is a project id or a domain. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource is explicit: 'Get API client details via Manage API'. That is enough to separate it from openpanel_create_client, openpanel_update_client and openpanel_delete_client. It stops short of 5 because it does not distinguish itself from the OAuth-flavored alternative openpanel_get_client_info, which an agent may easily confuse with this one.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ('Requires root mode client'), which tells the agent about credentials but not about when to pick this tool over openpanel_get_client_info or the other client tools. There are no when-not or alternative-routing statements.

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