Анекдоты по категории

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only with no side effects, discloses the sort order, and explains the response shape (total plus items). It lacks any note on auth or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then parameters, then response shape, in four tight sentences. There is mild duplication of the limit and categoryId rules already present in the schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains that the response contains total and items, and covers pagination mechanics plus the required categoryId source. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first try.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including min/max and defaults. The description restates limit default 15 and max 50 and adds only the procedural hint of stepping offset by limit, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Возвращает список записей конкретной категории') plus the ordering (newest to oldest by descending id). It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling search_jokes, so an agent must infer that distinction, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives actionable context: categoryId must come from list_categories, and pagination is driven by increasing offset in multiples of limit. It does not state when to prefer search_jokes or random_joke instead, so alternatives are implied rather than excluded.

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