rx_my_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: default status is in_process, results are sorted by due date, scope is limited to the current user, and it documents the rendered line format including the unread marker.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then usage triggers, then modes, then output format, then sibling routing. Every clause earns its place, though the single-block paragraph is heavier than necessary and the format-string detail could be tightened.

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 four-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, default sorting, all status modes, notification mode, the rendered output shape, and where to go for related data. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains that status=overdue/unread/completed/all restrict the result set, that notices=true swaps assignments for notifications, and that results are due-date sorted by default. This goes past restating 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Мои входящие задания в Directum RX") and immediately scopes it to the current user's incoming assignments, which cleanly separates it from rx_list_tasks (tasks I sent) and rx_get_assignment (single task detail). An agent can pick this tool without opening the 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?

Gives concrete user-intent triggers («что у меня в работе», «что просрочено», «что нового»), spells out the default behavior and every status mode, and explicitly routes two adjacent cases to named siblings (rx_list_tasks, rx_get_assignment). When-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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