launch_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool launches a local Panel server and opens the browser, but does not detail blocking behavior, side effects, or whether it returns immediately. The behavioral information is adequate but could be more complete.

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 concise with two short paragraphs, the first starting with a clear action verb. It is well-structured but could be slightly more efficient by combining the second paragraph into the first.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and behavioral aspects, though it omits prerequisites (e.g., plot existence) and return value details, which are likely in the output schema.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool opens a plot as a full interactive Panel app in the browser, specifying the verb 'open', the resource 'plot', and the modality 'as Panel app'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_plot_html' and 'stop_panel' by emphasizing full interactivity beyond iframe capabilities.

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 when to use this tool by contrasting with iframe limitations, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives like 'get_plot_html' for static views. It provides context for use cases requiring full Panel interactivity.

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