check_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it reveals the HTTP POST mechanism, the session-warming prerequisite, and experimentally decoded FIPI response codes (3=correct, 2=wrong, 0=not_found). It does not discuss side effects or authentication, but the most important runtime behaviors are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence carries useful information: the endpoint, the GUID requirement, the session prerequisite, and the response-code mapping. There is no filler or repetition.

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 that an output schema exists and sibling list_subjects likely provides subject values, the description covers the critical operational needs: endpoint, GUID format, session warming, and response semantics. A small gap remains in documenting the `subject` and `answer` parameters, but the tool is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies the non-obvious `guid` parameter (full 32-hex, not short qid), which is the main ambiguity. However, `subject` and `answer` are left entirely to their self-explanatory names and external context such as list_subjects, so not all parameters are enriched.

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 ('Проверить ответ через solve.php ФИПИ') with a clear resource and mechanism. It also adds a critical scoping detail (full 32-hex GUID, not short qid) that distinguishes this tool from simpler lookups. The purpose is immediately understandable and distinct from the sibling 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?

The description gives clear operational context: it checks an answer via solve.php, requires the full 32-hex GUID, and requires the client to warm the session before POST. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when this tool applies relative to the list/get siblings.

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