show_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (bring to front) without any mention of side effects, failure modes, or other behavioral traits. For instance, it does not clarify whether the panel must already exist or if the action 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds a specific usage hint. No extraneous information is included.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. It covers the main use case but lacks details on error handling, panel existence requirements, or other possible name values. It is minimally sufficient but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% coverage on parameter descriptions, so the description must add meaning. It adds the context that 'name='exec' is for the build panel', which gives some semantic value beyond the default value in the schema. However, it does not enumerate other possible panel names or their effects.

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 action ('bring... to the front') and the resource ('output panel'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_active_panel' or 'get_output_panel' which are for retrieval rather than focusing.

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 provides explicit guidance for using the tool with the example 'Use name='exec' for the build panel'. This gives clear context for a common use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the usage is straightforward enough that this is helpful.

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