get_gotchas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond content scope: no read-only confirmation, no pagination/caching behavior, no indication of how large the result is or whether it depends on auth. It only communicates what topics exist, not how the tool behaves.

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 the content scope front-loaded and the topic-default rule last. There is no padding, though the parenthetical list is dense and the description is entirely in Russian while sibling tool names are English.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but the absence of any link between library_id and resolve_library, and of any routing versus get_docs, leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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 usefully explains the topic parameter's default behavior ('no topic = all') and 'по библиотеке' implies library_id scopes the result to one library, but it never states the required library_id format or where the id comes from (e.g. resolve_library).

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 names a specific resource (library gotchas) and enumerates concrete subject areas (signatures, idempotency, minor units, test mode, receipts), which is far more specific than a tautology. It implies a distinction from get_docs by framing the content as 'non-obvious integration traps', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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 phrase 'Без topic - все' ('without topic - everything') gives a usable calling convention for the topic filter, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus resolve_library or get_docs, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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