ДокиДепо — открытые инструменты склада

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so less description is needed. The description adds the context that the tool returns a fixed, deterministic check of one educational warehouse chain and does not mutate organization or balances, reinforcing the safety profile without contradicting annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first states the core return behavior, the second states what the tool does not do. The most important content is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description plus annotations and an output schema cover nearly everything an agent needs. The only small gap is the slightly vague meaning of a 'fixed check', but the output schema resolves most of the ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds a small piece of scope context by mentioning one educational warehouse chain.

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 identifies a concrete action (returns) and a concrete resource (a fixed check of one training warehouse chain), and the title suggests a safe first-day plan. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling get/list tools by content, though the title and description have a slight semantic mismatch.

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 'does not create an organization and does not change balances' line gives an implicit sense for when it is safe to call, but there is no explicit guidance compared with get_public_tool or list_public_tools. The use-case is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds the output composition (purpose, inputs, result, limitations, link), which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior for invalid IDs or other runtime traits. This is acceptable given the annotations but not especially rich.

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 sentence with the core return value front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient and scannable, even though the phrase 'измеряемую ссылку' is slightly unusual.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only tool with one enumerated parameter and a provided output schema, so the description does not need to over-explain. It could have added a routing note toward list_public_tools for discovering valid IDs, but the enum and output schema cover most operational needs.

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 never names or explains the id parameter. It only implies that the tool must be an existing one, which is a minimal validity constraint. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description itself adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Возвращает') and a concrete resource: the purpose, inputs, result, limitations, and measurable link of one existing tool. This clearly identifies it as a single-tool card getter, especially versus list-like siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of list_public_tools or get_first_warehouse_day. The only implicit signal is 'одного существующего инструмента', which suggests a single known tool, but the agent must infer the selection rule on its own.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which lowers the burden on the description. The description adds meaningful extra context by explicitly stating that the tool does not accept files, goods, passwords, or codes, helping agents avoid sending sensitive or irrelevant payloads. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 well-structured sentence: it front-loads the core result, then clarifies the non-operational, read-only nature with a concise exclusion list. Every part adds value and there is no filler.

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 low-complexity read-only listing tool with one optional enum parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It communicates what the tool returns, what it avoids doing, and what inputs it will not accept, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, category, and the schema covers 100% of its meaning with an enum and per-value descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema carries the full burden, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Возвращает проверенный каталог открытых страниц ДокиДепо') and a clear resource: a catalog of open/public pages. The verb 'list' is distinct from the sibling get_public_tool, which implies retrieving one item, so the tool is effectively differentiated.

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: an agent should call this when it needs an overall catalog of open public materials. It also adds a useful negative boundary ('Не выполняет складские операции...'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_public_tool for retrieving a single item or get_first_warehouse_day for other purposes.

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