openpanel_list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies read-only, the description does not confirm this, nor does it explain pagination behavior, response structure, or what constitutes an 'API client' in this 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?

Single sentence format is appropriately brief. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without providing value, slightly detracting from an otherwise front-loaded description.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits return value structure, authentication requirements specific to client listing, and the relationship between the 'site' and 'project_id' parameters.

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 'site' and 'project_id' parameters. The description mentions 'for a project' which loosely maps to project_id, but provides no semantics for the 'site' parameter, accepted formats, or whether these are IDs, slugs, or URLs.

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?

Clearly states the action (List) and resource (API clients) with scope (for a project). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'openpanel_get_client' which retrieves a single client versus this tool which lists all.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openpanel_get_client'. No mention of prerequisites or when listing all clients is preferable to retrieving a specific one.

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