sassy_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses important behavioral traits: the panel binds to 127.0.0.1 only, requires a token stored owner-only in a specific path, start enables auto-start, stop disables it, and url does not start the panel. It also notes the panel returns a URL with token, covering side effects and security requirements comprehensively.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, then a compact action list, followed by security/usage notes. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting aids quick scanning without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers all actions, the default, security constraints, and token requirements. An output schema exists, so return format details are not needed. Minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior when start/stop is called on an already-running/stopped panel), but overall it is contextually complete for the tool's low complexity.

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 schema provides only a parameter name 'action' with a default, but no descriptions or enums (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by enumerating all valid action values (status, start, stop, url) and explaining their exact behavior, making the parameter self-documenting.

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 controls the SassyMCP Control Panel, a loopback web UI for the permission engine, settings, event log, and classifiers. It uses a specific verb ('Control') and resource, and the action list further differentiates it from sibling tools that handle other aspects like setup, configuration, and observability.

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 clear usage context by explaining the four actions (status, start, stop, url) and their effects, including prerequisites like the per-install token and local-only binding. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, but given the tool's unique purpose, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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