Балансировщики проекта

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

The description implies a read-only listing operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, creating a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, filtering, return format) are disclosed in the description.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately readable.

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 description is minimal and lacks context about expected response structure, pagination, or how this tool fits among similar tools. There is no output schema, and the annotations are contradictory, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 tool has a single parameter, project_id, which is fully described in the schema as 'ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID проекта'. The tool description mentions 'в указанном проекте' but adds no further detail beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Список балансировщиков в указанном проекте' clearly states the action (list), the resource (balancers), and the scope (in the specified project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_balancers and list_all_project_balancers by emphasizing the project context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling list tools (e.g., list_balancers, list_all_project_balancers), it would be helpful to specify that this is for the project-scoped list. The description merely states what it does without any usage context or exclusions.

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