Изображения объявлений

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the image-hash key and the upload path, but it does not disclose response shape or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and key concept, the second routes new-image uploads to the correct sibling tool. The structure is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call it. It could mention what fields the returned image objects contain, but the absence of an output schema and the clear 'returns a list of images' statement keep this from being a major gap.

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 limit, hashes, and offset are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that the hash is the key identifier but adds no new syntax, defaults, or parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Возвращает список изображений из библиотеки изображений' (returns a list of images from the image library), and identifies the key as the image hash. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling upload_ad_image by explicitly assigning that tool the responsibility for uploading new images.

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 a clear usage context: this tool lists existing images from the library, while new images are handled by upload_ad_image. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or other alternatives like get_ad_videos, but the routing to upload_ad_image is a useful when-not signal.

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