Дополнительные услуги выделенного сервера

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

The annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns specific fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose any other behaviors such as rate limits, side effects, or the contradiction between the implied read-only nature of a list operation and the readOnlyHint=false annotation. No explicit contradiction with annotations, but limited extra context.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that state the return content and a usage hint. However, the unnecessary and incorrect 'plan_id' term slightly detracts from the overall clarity.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description provides return fields and a context for use. However, the plan_id/preset_id mismatch and lack of details about ordering, pagination, or how additional services integrate with create_dedicated_server leave minor gaps.

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 schema has full description coverage for the only parameter, but the tool description introduces 'plan_id' as if it were the parameter name, directly conflicting with the schema's 'preset_id'. This inconsistency undermines the parameter semantics and could cause an agent to misidentify the input field, despite the schema being clear.

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 additional services for a specific dedicated server tariff, with fields (ID, name, price, period, description). The verb 'Возвращает' is specific and the resource is identifiable. However, it refers to the parameter as 'plan_id' while the schema uses 'preset_id', introducing potential confusion about the exact parameter name.

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 provides explicit guidance: use this tool to obtain plan_id for passing to create_dedicated_server. The schema parameter description further advises getting the ID via list_dedicated_server_presets. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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