object_command_panel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' signals a read-only retrieval, and 'when supported' warns that support is conditional, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens for unsupported objects, error behavior, or response shape.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Return command panel') and ends with a meaningful caveat ('when supported'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with four undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits how to identify the object, what the returned command panel contains, and what happens when support is absent, leaving an agent to discover the contract through trial and error.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. An agent cannot tell whether name, type, and title are alternative identifiers, required filters, or optional hints, nor how session_id relates to the found object.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('command panel for a found UI object'), so the basic action is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like object_context_menu or command_bar, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'for a found UI object, when supported' gives some context about when the tool applies and implies a prerequisite that an object must already be found. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so the guidance is only partial.

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