Задачи и контроль качества

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds background on how quality tasks originate, which provides context about the data, but it does not disclose operational behavior such as default ordering, pagination, or whether results are scoped to the current user. This is adequate but not rich.

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—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then explain the quality-context relevant behavior. There is no filler or redundancy, and every clause adds meaning.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description omits crucial invocation details like default result size, ordering, or the fact that openWorldHint may return results beyond the filter criteria. It also does not clarify whether all employees' tasks are returned or only those visible to the caller. Given the sibling list tools and the parameter count, more operational context would help an agent call it correctly.

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 covers 3 of 4 parameters with descriptions (assignee_id, is_completed, only_quality), leaving limit undocumented. The description adds real value only for only_quality, explaining its meaning and purpose. No extra semantics are given for the other parameters, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing limit description.

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 states the tool returns employee tasks, and explains the quality-control subset with the only_quality filter. It distinguishes this resource from other list tools by naming the specific object (tasks) and the semantic split (quality vs. regular). However, it never explicitly says 'list' or 'retrieve', relying on the tool name and title to imply the action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or other list tools. The description only explains internal table mechanics (quality tasks created by robot/AI) and does not mention any scenario where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The only_quality filter is described, but that is a parameter-level hint, not usage guidance.

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