reflect_get_panel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or potential effects. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose. The first sentence is slightly long but contains necessary detail without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides a clear list of what the panel includes, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the return value. It is complete for most use cases.

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 single parameter `ids` is fully covered in the schema description (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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 retrieves a 'full multi-persona panel' and lists its components (panel protocol, shared voice rules, full lens docs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `reflect_get_persona` and `reflect_get_voice_rules`.

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 explicit guidance on using the `ids` parameter to scope the panel or omitting it for all archetypes, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives.

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