CPA: чат по actionId

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

Annotations fully declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which clearly communicate the tool's safety and behavior. The description ('Information about CPA chat') adds minimal context beyond these annotations, but does not contradict them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence in Russian that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Every word 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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter, read-only), the description lacks details about the return structure (e.g., chat ID, messages, status). Without an output schema, an agent may need additional context to fully understand what information is provided.

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?

The input schema includes only one parameter (actionId) with a description already provided. The description's phrase 'by actionId' reinforces the parameter's role but adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema offers.

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 the tool provides information about a CPA chat by actionId, which is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cpa_chats_by_time_v2, which also retrieve chat data but by time range.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cpa_chats_by_time_v2 for time-based queries). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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