romaco_list_panes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently describes the return structure (id, indicators, alias) and does not mention any side effects. Since it is a read-only list operation, this level of detail is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return fields and provides a key usage example. It fully addresses the agent's needs for selecting and invoking this tool.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage (by virtue of no properties), the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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: listing chart panes (main candlestick pane and indicator subpanels). It specifies what each pane returns (id, indicators, alias), distinguishing it from sibling tools like romaco_add_drawing or romaco_add_indicator by focusing on enumeration rather than modification.

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 a concrete usage: using the returned `id` as `paneId` on romaco_add_drawing. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context and sibling list imply that it's for obtaining pane references, which is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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