eda_sys_panel_control_open_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 restates that the bottom panel is opened and that the function returns void, without mentioning side effects, whether opening is idempotent, or any impact on other UI state.

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 very short and front-loaded with the signature. The Chinese phrase is largely redundant with the tool name, but it does not add bloat; the main weakness is missing information rather than unnecessary content.

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 panel-opening tool, the description is nearly adequate. However, the meaning and valid values of `ESYS_BottomPanelTab` are undefined, and there is no annotation or output schema to compensate, so an agent could not confidently invoke the optional tab parameter correctly.

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 coverage is high and the schema describes the generic args array and windowId. The description adds the official signature including the optional `tab?: ESYS_BottomPanelTab`, which is useful, but it does not explain possible values for the tab parameter or how to construct the args array.

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: open the bottom panel, with the exact function signature and a Chinese translation. It is specific about the target resource (bottom panel) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that open or close left/right panels, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 this tool should be used versus close_bottom_panel, toggle lock state, or open_left/right_panel. The description simply states the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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