toggle_command_panel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the toggle action (opens if closed, closes if open), which is transparent. However, it could add that this operation is non-destructive and has no side effects beyond visibility, which would improve transparency further.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and contains no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place: names the tool's target and explains the toggle behavior.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It accurately describes the function. However, it could briefly note that no state is persisted or that this action does not affect other sidebar elements, to slightly improve completeness in the context of sibling tools.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so no additional parameter information is needed. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the description is perfectly clear about the lack of parameters.

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 toggles the SupaSidebar command panel, with specific verb 'toggle' and resource 'command panel'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'toggle_sidebar' and 'launch_sidebar' by naming the exact component.

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 implies usage by stating open/close behavior, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., launch_sidebar for always opening, toggle_sidebar for sidebar). No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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