Произвольный запрос к API Яндекс Метрики

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

Given destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description adds crucial context about write operations requiring confirmWrite=true, which is not in the annotations. It also mentions that POST/DELETE are write operations. However, it doesn't detail what is destroyed or the exact consequences, but the annotations already set the destructive nature, and the description adds a practical guard.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence earns its place. It includes examples, usage conditions, and parameter behavior without redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with 5 parameters and nested objects, the description together with the schema provides adequate guidance. It lacks mention of response format, but there is no output schema, and for a generic request tool, response behavior is inherently variable. It covers the essential aspects: when to use, how authentication works implied, and write confirmation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the role of 'query' as query string parameters and 'body' as JSON for POST, which aligns with the schema. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for paths, method defaults, or confirmWrite requirements beyond what the schema describes.

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 it is a universal request tool that directly accesses any path of the Yandex Metrica API, with concrete examples. It also explicitly notes it is for endpoints without a dedicated tool, distinguishing it from siblings like list_counters and get_statistics.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it (for endpoints without a dedicated tool) and implies when not to (when a dedicated tool exists). It also provides conditions for POST/DELETE requiring confirmWrite=true, and notes GET is free. This effectively routes agents to the right tool.

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