Тарифы балансировщиков

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description describes a read-only operation ('returns a list'), which is a direct contradiction. This inconsistency undermines the agent's ability to infer the tool's side effects. The description itself does disclose the return behavior, but the annotation conflict is a serious flaw.

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 two short, focused sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary purpose and then gives a concrete usage hint, earning every word.

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 simple no-parameter list operation, the description fully covers the purpose, the return type, and the intended usage pattern. Given the lack of parameters and output schema, there is no critical missing context.

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 has zero properties, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The description adds value by mentioning preset_id as an output concept, implying what the agent will receive, which goes beyond the empty 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a list of available presets for balancers, using the verb 'returns' and specifying the resource type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_balancers or list_dedicated_server_presets by naming the exact domain (balancer presets).

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool before create_balancer to select a preset_id, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but for this resource-specific list tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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