add_esql_table_panel

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: 'It is NOT validated server-side — a wrong query or column name yields an empty panel.' This is a valuable warning about failure modes. It also explains the effect of the `space` parameter. Annotations only cover read-only/destructive hints, which are false, so no contradiction. The description does not mention idempotency or side effects, but the provided annotations already handle those, and the description adds useful details about error behavior.

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 compact but information-dense. It packs the core purpose, parameter roles, failure mode, an alternative, and the space parameter into two short paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical: purpose → parameter details → caveat → alternative → namespace. No fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (ES|QL query, multiple column types) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, parameter semantics, failure mode, and when to use alternatives. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites like 'the dashboard must exist', but that is implied by 'existing dashboard'. It also doesn't describe the return value, but the output schema handles that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage and limitations.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does this effectively: `columns` are grouped as 'grouping/dimension columns — one table row per distinct value' with an example; `metric_columns` are defined as 'numeric value columns shown per row' with an example; `esql` is described as the query; `space` is explained with a default. `dashboard_id` and `title` are self-explanatory given their names and the tool's purpose. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Add an ES|QL table panel to an existing dashboard: show a query's output columns as a table.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the table panel type and naming add_panel for field-based charts. The verb 'add' and resource 'table panel' are specific and actionable.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'For field-based charts use add_panel with a VizSpec.' This directly points to an alternative tool for a different use case. It also clarifies the role of columns vs metric_columns, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. The note about server-side validation also sets expectations for when to use it cautiously.

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