rx_help_topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description only repeats 'Только чтение', but it adds genuinely useful behavior: long articles are truncated by max_chars and continued via offset, and hyperlinks map to other retrievable articles. That navigation/truncation workflow is context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then link semantics, then pagination behavior, then the read-only note. No sentence is redundant.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers what is returned (full article text), how it paginates, and how to navigate linked articles. The only minor gap is no explicit statement of what a truncated response looks like, but the offset mechanism is explained well enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies that 'topic' is a file name sourced from search results or from a link inside article text, and frames offset/max_chars as a continuation mechanism rather than raw integers.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Полный текст статьи справки Directum RX по имени файла') and explicitly ties input to the sibling tools rx_help_search and rx_help_toc. An agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from search/toc without opening any schema.

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?

Clear routing context: the topic comes from rx_help_search or rx_help_toc results, and in-text links are followed with this same tool. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer rx_help_search instead of fetching full text), so it stops just short of a 5.

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