wb_supplies_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Supplies list', which weakly implies a read-only enumeration, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, response fields, or any limitations. The description restates the tool's purpose without adding behavioral context.

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 very short and has no obvious filler, but it is a label rather than a structured sentence. The parenthetical '(поставки)' is redundant with the English 'Supplies list' and adds little value for an agent. It is concise but under-specified.

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 tool, the lack of input complexity reduces risk, but there is no output schema and no return-value detail. Combined with a large sibling set of supply-related tools, the description does not provide enough information for an agent to confidently distinguish this tool from wb_fbw_supplies or wb_supply_trbx_list.

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 input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. With zero parameters, the baseline of 4 applies; the description is not required to explain parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource (supplies/поставки) and the operation (list), so an agent can tell this is an enumeration of supplies. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as wb_supply_detail or wb_fbw_supplies, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many supply-related tools like wb_supply_detail, wb_fbw_supplies, and wb_supply_trbx_list, but the description never mentions them or the conditions for choosing this one.

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