Статус и завершение перевода

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It does well: states idempotency (repeat safe, mint only once), the conditional behavior (only mints when ready), and the retry instruction. These are genuinely useful behaviors beyond schema. Could add side effects but this is solid coverage for a non-destructive-ish tool.

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, zero waste. Every clause carries actionable meaning: what it does, the once-only guarantee, and the retry instruction. Front-loaded with the primary purpose. Ideal length.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, this description is quite complete. It covers the operation flow, idempotency, and retry behavior. It doesn't show what return value indicates readiness vs completion, but with no output schema the description need not detail return formats. Minor gap: could clarify what to do with history/other bridging tools, but overall adequate for complexity.

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 coverage is 50% (transferId has no description; autoMint does have one). The description adds meaningful semantics: autoMint is implicitly explained by 'проверяет готовность... выпускает USDC' suggesting default behavior. The 'false — только проверить' schema text covers autoMint. The description augments transferId context (it identifies which transfer to bridge). Reasonably compensates for coverage gap.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Проверяет готовность аттестации' and 'выпускает USDC'), the resource (Circle attestation for USDC bridging), and the action's outcome. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly — bridge_start initiates, bridge_status checks/completes. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so not 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 description gives explicit guidance: check attestation readiness, then mint USDC; if not ready, wait a minute and retry. This is clear operational context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this vs siblings (e.g., 'use bridge_start to initiate'). Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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