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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses that this is a stateful, multi-turn session, that the question count is variable (~25), and the strict one-question-per-message interaction rules. It does not cover failure modes, what happens to an abandoned session, or what identifiers the response carries for use with the answer tool.

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 essential fact (primary entry point, creates session, returns first question) is front-loaded, followed by the interaction protocol. The protocol sentences are long and repetitive but each carries an operational rule, and the length is justified for a multi-turn tool.

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 stateful tool with no output schema and seven parameters, the description explains the return (first question) and the full loop through answer and finish. The one real gap is how the session created here is referenced on subsequent calls (session id in the response), which the agent must discover from the response itself.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds value by telling the agent to collect role (required), company size and direct reports from the user before starting and that the latter two are optional ('по желанию'). It does not explain mode or user_id behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource (creates a diagnostic session) and the concrete return value (the FIRST question), plus scope: adaptive mode ~25 questions, like the site. It also names the sibling tools to use next (ruforge_diagnostic_answer, ruforge_diagnostic_finish), so an agent can distinguish it from the other 20 tools.

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?

It explicitly labels itself the PRIMARY way to run diagnostics, gives preconditions (ask about role, company size, direct reports before starting), the per-turn protocol, and the exact next calls on each answer and at the end. No inference required.

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