suggest_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool operates without calling models, implying a safe, read-only action. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the core function.

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: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second lists strategies and usage context. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 covers the main purpose and how the output is used, but given the absence of output schema and parameter details, it leaves gaps about return value structure and parameter specifics. For a recommendation tool with clear intent, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the strategy options but does not explain the other parameters (task, panel, max_models, require_available_key). Their names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value over the schema for parameter understanding.

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 recommends a model panel from route/profile metadata without calling models, lists specific strategies, and explains how the output can be used in other tools like plan_task or consult_problem. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that execute tasks rather than recommend panels.

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: it is a zero-cost operation that recommends a panel for later use when the user chooses to spend tokens. It implies when to use it (before calling plan_task or consult_problem) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like suggest_workflow.

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