Открыть произвольную страницу SmartLMS

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: requests run 'под авторизованной сессией' and the result is unstructured visible text plus links rather than parsed data. It omits any note on output size limits or failure behavior on auth expiry or bad paths.

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?

Two sentences, no waste: the action and scoping come first, the example path is inline, and the differentiation clause closes it. Nothing is padded or restated from the schema.

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 a simple read-only, one-parameter opener with a fully covered schema and no output schema, so the description's duty is mainly to say what comes back — which it does ('видимый текст и ссылки'). A brief note on output truncation or behavior on an invalid path would make it complete for an open-world fetcher.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including an example path. The description repeats essentially the same example ('/calendar/view.php') without adding constraints such as whether query strings, absolute URLs or non-edu.hse.ru hosts are rejected. With a fully described single param, baseline 3 applies.

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 (Открыть), a specific resource (любую страницу edu.hse.ru), the input form (относительный путь) and even the return content (видимый текст и ссылки). The clause 'для сценариев, не покрытых готовыми тулами' implicitly separates it from the dedicated siblings like lms_get_grades, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a fallback for scenarios not covered by the ready-made tools, which gives an agent a clear selection rule against the other lms_* siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer or warning about what this page-scraping route cannot do (e.g. structured data), so it isn't a full when/when-not treatment.

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