get_output_panel

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions only the return value and default behavior but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or permission requirements. Insufficient for a tool that could fail if the panel does not exist.

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 concise sentences, first states main purpose, second provides usage nuance. No wasted words, front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 simplicity and the presence of many sibling tools, the description covers essential aspects. No output schema, but return content is straightforward. Slight gap in error behavior for invalid names.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: explains default behavior (active panel) and provides a specific valid value ('exec'). While it doesn't list all possible names, it compensates adequately for the schema 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?

Clearly states 'return the text content of an output panel' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'get_active_panel' by focusing on text content and providing a specific named use case.

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 clear guidance on when to omit the name (to read the active panel) and when to use 'name=exec' (for build output). Lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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