Задачи на сегодня

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 discloses filtering rules, the exclusion of done-type columns, the default inclusion of overdue items, and the exact sort order (ASAP first, then due date). It omits permissions, pagination behavior and result shape, but for a read tool the behavioral profile is largely covered.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: scope, exclusion rule, ordering. The most decision-relevant information (the date window) is front-loaded.

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 seven-parameter read tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the semantics an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the returned card fields remain unstated, a minor gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with its default. The description reinforces the include_overdue default and the meaning of 'today', but adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g. how role interacts with user_id) beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Возвращает активные карточки пользователя') plus a precise scope: due today or earlier, done-type columns excluded. It never names the overlapping siblings (kaiten_overdue_cards, kaiten_search_cards, kaiten_plan_day), so an agent must still infer the distinction, which keeps it 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 'when' is implied by the scoping ('со сроком на сегодня или раньше'), but there are no explicit alternatives — notably kaiten_overdue_cards, which returns a heavily overlapping set, and kaiten_search_cards. The only explicit exclusion is functional (done columns), not a usage rule.

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