Открыть произвольную страницу ЕЛК

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real context: requests run under an authorized SSO session, the result is visible text plus extracted links, and helpdesk ticketing is out of scope on another host.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return value, then supporting detail. The known-section list and the helpdesk-domain note are dense but each carries navigational value; the helpdesk parenthesis is the most tangential element.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must say what comes back — and it does (visible text and link list). Combined with annotations covering safety and the section inventory covering valid inputs, an agent has nearly everything needed, with only the sibling-routing rule 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives a path example, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by enumerating concrete valid paths and showing that query strings such as ?section=documents&subsection=certificates are acceptable, which meaningfully constrains what to pass.

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 — open an arbitrary lk.hse.ru page by relative path — and adds what is returned (visible text plus link list), which distinguishes it from data-returning siblings like elk_get_academic_data. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, elk_get_section, so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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 enumeration of known sections and the note that helpdesk tickets live on a different domain (pmo.hse.ru) implicitly tell the agent what this tool can and cannot reach. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this rather than elk_get_section or elk_search_services, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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