eda_sys_panel_control_open_left_panel

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It doesn't mention idempotency, side effects, whether a window must be active, or any state changes. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the literal 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 short and to the point, which is appropriate for a simple UI action. However, it is almost too minimal, lacking any structure like sections or examples. It's concise but not structured in a way that aids understanding beyond the bare minimum.

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 panel control tool, the description provides only the action and signature. It lacks information about when to use it, what the tab parameter options are, or any behavioral notes. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and side effects.

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 schema descriptions are generic (args as 'JSON parameter array' and windowId as target window), and the description adds the function signature showing the optional 'tab' parameter of type ESYS_LeftPanelTab. However, it doesn't explain what values tab can take or what the array contains, leaving parameter semantics vague. Schema coverage is 100% but the descriptions are not detailed.

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 function signature and the Chinese phrase '打开左侧面板' (open left panel), indicating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like open_right_panel or close_left_panel by naming the left panel. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the optional tab parameter, so it's clear but slightly incomplete.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description is purely a statement of action without any contextual usage advice.

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