ui_open_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the basic actions but does not mention what happens if the panel is already in the requested state, whether opening one panel closes another, or whether TradingView needs to be loaded first. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 one efficient sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action verbs and resource, then lists concrete panel types, giving the agent all necessary high-level information in compact form.

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?

For a tool with only two enum-constrained parameters and no output schema, this description is mostly sufficient. It names the target resource, the valid actions, and the panel identifiers. A brief note about prerequisites or state-dependent behavior would round it out, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters: each has an enum constraint and a description. The description's list of panel names duplicates the schema values and adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or interactions. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action set (open/close/toggle) and an explicit resource (TradingView panels), enumerating the supported panels. However, the sibling tool `open_panel` exists and the description does not clarify how `ui_open_panel` differs from it, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself within the tool family.

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 purpose statement implicitly tells an agent to use this tool when a TradingView panel needs to be opened, closed, or toggled. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like `open_panel`, `tv_ui_state`, or `ui_click`, but for a simple UI manipulation tool the implied usage is reasonably clear.

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