OpenPanel: List clients

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

The description discloses the root-mode prerequisite, which is genuinely beyond the structured fields. But it frames the tool as a plain listing while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, giving the agent no way to reconcile why a read-style enumeration is marked destructive. No return shape, pagination, or scope of clients is described.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite. The only waste is the opaque "[UNIFIED]" prefix, which occupies prime position without conveying anything actionable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what a client record looks like or at least whether results are paginated; it does neither. Combined with the unexplained severity annotations and the undocumented "site" parameter, an agent has too little to invoke this confidently.

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?

There is exactly one required parameter, "site", and the schema provides zero description coverage for it; the description never mentions it. With no parameter info at all it falls below the zero-param baseline, but the low parameter count limits the damage.

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 ("List all API clients") plus the access path ("via Manage API"), which is enough to distinguish it from openpanel_get_client (single client) and plausibly oauth_list_clients. The "[UNIFIED]" tag is unexplained jargon that adds no discriminative meaning.

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 one real precondition ("Requires 'root' mode client"), which is useful gating information. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling oauth_list_clients or openpanel_get_client, so the agent must guess between near-identical listing tools.

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