Control panel

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the panel is a live shared surface whose person-side choices are readable via robot_status().panel and wait_for("panel"), and it can be toggled off via close. It does not cover persistence, what closing does to in-flight selections, or whether opening is idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the panel's contents, then the browser routing, then the state-sharing hook. The feature enumeration is longer than strictly needed for selection, but each clause is informative rather than filler.

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, the description correctly explains how results come back (robot_status().panel, wait_for("panel")), which is the key missing piece for a tool that opens a UI. Minor gaps remain around idempotency and side effects of closing the panel.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the practical decision behind open_browser (built-in browser present vs absent) and implying the enabled toggle via 'open (or close)'. yolo_detection's ~10 s first-load cost is left to the schema.

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 concrete verb (open/close) and a specific resource (the control panel web page), then enumerates what the panel actually contains (live camera, detection boxes, team buttons, labelling, colour teaching, STOP, map, log). Nothing else in the sibling list does this, so disambiguation is 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?

Gives operational routing: show the URL in the app's built-in browser, otherwise give the person the link, or set open_browser. This tells the agent how to invoke it in different hosts, but it never states when this tool should be preferred over siblings (e.g. versus look, detect_objects, robot_status) or any condition for not using it.

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