open_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions the deep-link mechanism but does not elaborate on potential side effects, device/session requirements, or failure modes. For a non-destructive navigation action, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 compact: one main sentence and a list of supported panels. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler. Every element contributes meaningful information.

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 (3 params, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It lacks behavior descriptions for session handling or errors, but these are not critical for a straightforward settings opener. The output schema likely documents return values.

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 description coverage is 67% (panel and device have descriptions, session_id does not). The description adds a list of valid panel values, which is helpful for the panel parameter. However, it does not provide additional meaning for device or session_id, leaving the undocumented session_id poorly contextualized. This partially compensates but not fully.

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's function: 'Open a system settings panel via ACTION deep link.' It identifies the specific verb (open), resource (system settings panel), and mechanism. The list of supported panels adds specificity and distinguishes it from the sibling open_app tool.

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 enumerating supported panels, which serves as a whitelist of valid targets. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough. A sibling comparison is absent, but for a simple settings opener, the context is sufficient.

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