Справочник SEAF

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is prose reference text and that list_sections is the next step, which is useful, but it says nothing about the size/format of that text or whether it should be read whole versus in parts — relevant for a documentation dump.

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?

Three compact segments: trigger condition, return payload, next step. Front-loaded with the when-to-call clause and zero filler, which is ideal for a zero-argument documentation tool.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the content covers, that it comes back as text, and where to go afterwards. Missing only a hint about how large the returned text is or how to consume it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes input in a way that would mislead the agent.

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 concretely what the tool yields: SEAF metamodel concepts, relation semantics, and verified JSONata techniques (checklist, patterns, pitfalls), plus 'Возвращает текст справочника'. That is a specific content scope rather than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling find_jsonata_examples, 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?

The 'Когда вызывать' clause gives a clear trigger condition (need metamodel concepts, relation meaning, JSONata recipes) and names a follow-up step ('Дальше: list_sections'). It gives no when-not-to-use condition and does not route the agent away from find_jsonata_examples, so it is strong but not complete.

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