easypanel_raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses that reads may expose sensitive data (env vars/secrets), that writes skip safeguards of curated tools, and that the client validates operations against OpenAPI. The description is thorough but could add more detail about error handling or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a short main statement, examples, warnings, and discovery instructions. It packs valuable information into a moderate length. Minor room for tightening, but overall effective.

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 that this is a raw API passthrough with no output schema, the description provides complete context: behavior, safety implications, required confirm step, discovery mechanism, and the relationship to curated tools. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool safely.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by: explaining the 'confirm' parameter semantics (required for writes, must be "CONFIRMO"), clarifying the 'procedure' naming convention (flat name vs old namespace notation) and OpenAPI validation behavior of 'isMutation'. This elevates it to a 4.

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 purpose: directly calling any Easypanel API operation (~375) not covered by dedicated tools. It gives specific examples of advanced resources (Traefik, branding, Cloudflare Tunnel, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tools that handle common operations.

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 excellent usage guidance: when to use this tool (advanced/uncapped resources), safety warnings (reads can return sensitive data, writes bypass curated protections), explicit instructions for write operations (isMutation:true + confirm), and even how to discover available operation names (GET /api/openapi.json). This comprehensively answers when and how to use it.

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