eda_sys_panel_control_open_right_panel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only repeats the function name and signature, offering no information about side effects, prerequisites, or the nature of the operation (e.g., whether it is a UI-only action). It does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 concise, consisting of a single line with the action and the signature. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the essential parameter information. No fluff or redundancy.

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, the description minimally satisfies the need to know what the tool does, but it lacks usage context, side effects, or any guidance for an agent selecting among the many panel control siblings. It is barely sufficient for direct invocation but poor for decision-making.

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 100% with descriptions for 'args' and 'windowId'. The description adds the function signature revealing an optional 'tab' parameter of type ESYS_RightPanelTab, which provides some semantic guidance about how to pass arguments. However, it does not explain the possible enum values or the tab's effect, so the added value is limited but present.

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 right panel' and includes a function signature. It is specific about the resource (right panel) and the verb (open). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like close_right_panel or toggle_right_panel_lock_state, though the name itself is sufficiently unambiguous.

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. The description simply states what it does without mentioning contexts, exclusions, or when a different panel control tool would be more appropriate. No alternatives are named.

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