eda_sys_panel_control_close_bottom_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 only states that it closes the bottom panel, without mentioning any side effects, reversibility, state dependencies (e.g., what happens if already closed), or whether it requires specific window focus. This is minimal coverage for a mutation-like action.

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 extremely concise, consisting of the signature and a short Chinese phrase. It contains no fluff or repetition, and the key information (what it does) is front-loaded. This is an efficient use of space for a simple tool.

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 simple UI action with no output schema and straightforward parameters, the description is adequate to understand the primary action. However, it lacks any context about when to use it relative to siblings or any edge-case behavior, which could confuse an agent trying to select it appropriately among many panel-control tools.

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%, as both parameters (args and windowId) have descriptions. The description itself adds no extra meaning about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents them adequately.

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 action 'closeBottomPanel() -> void' and its Chinese equivalent '关闭底部面板' (close the bottom panel), specifying the verb and resource. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools with similar names like close_left_panel or open_bottom_panel beyond the resource name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_bottom_panel, close_left_panel, or toggle_bottom_panel_lock_state. No context is provided about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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