Список операций Эльбы

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that this is a read-only listing of methods/routes derived from a built-in OpenAPI schema, which implies no destructive side effects. It could be more explicit about return format or search behavior, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, object, and source with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple one-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description and parameter schema are sufficient to call it. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing to sibling tools, but that is more about usage guidance than completeness.

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 description does not describe the 'search' parameter beyond naming the action, but the input schema already provides a complete description of it (optional search by route or description). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 3 applies and no compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('shows') and a concrete resource ('available methods and routes of the Elba Public API'), and it names the source ('built-in OpenAPI schema'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like describe_operation or request.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of elba_describe_operation, elba_list_organizations, or elba_request. There is no mention of discovering operations first, nor any exclusions.

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