open_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the mechanism (ACTION deep link) and enumerates valid panels, which implies constraints. However, it does not disclose potential errors or side effects, though for a simple settings opener this is minor.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a compact list of supported panels. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no required, output schema exists). The description covers the action and valid inputs, and the schema handles parameter details. It doesn't mention error behavior, but given the output schema and simplicity, it is sufficiently 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?

While the schema already describes both parameters (coverage 100%), the description adds substantial value by listing all supported panel names, which functions as an implicit enum for the 'panel' parameter. This goes beyond the schema's single example.

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 a specific verb ('open'), resource ('system settings panel'), and mechanism, and the list of supported panels distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_app.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when needing to access system settings) and implicitly distinguishes it from open_app, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The supported panel list also guides appropriate usage.

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