panel_view

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds some behavioral context via the 'type' parameter (what each mode draws) and the 'detail' parameter (payload depth for LLM planning). However, it doesn't disclose return format details beyond the output schema, or any side effects like caching when as_handle=true (though that is in the schema).

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It doesn't waste words, though it could add a bit more context about when to use it. The schema carries the detailed parameter explanations, so the brevity is appropriate.

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 has an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 13 parameters and many sibling plotting tools, the description could be more explicit about how this tool fits into the panel analysis workflow and when to choose it over alternatives like treatment_rollout_plot or did_plot. The 'detail' parameter hints at LLM chaining but the description doesn't fully explain the tool's role.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; the 'type' parameter description in the schema is already detailed. The tool description itself doesn't add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 says 'panelView-style display of a panel's treatment status and outcomes.' It names a specific resource (panel treatment status/outcomes) and a display action, and the 'type' parameter clarifies the two modes. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like treatment_rollout_plot or synth_plot, and the name 'panel_view' is somewhat generic.

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 implies usage for visualizing panel treatment status and outcomes, and the 'type' parameter explains when to use 'treat' vs 'outcome'. But it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling plotting tools (e.g., treatment_rollout_plot, did_plot, event_study_plot) or provide exclusions.

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