Тарифы (пресеты) серверов

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety and behavior. It reveals the HTTP GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, and states the output content (configurations with prices). However, it omits explicit statements about side effects, authentication needs, or response format, which are relevant for an unannotated tool.

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 consists of two short sentences: one stating the resource and purpose, and one giving the endpoint. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool is a simple no-parameter listing with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and result content. However, it lacks details about response structure (e.g., array vs object, fields per preset), pagination, or required authentication, which would be helpful given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description does not claim to add parameter details, but the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description provides no conflicting or unnecessary parameter info. It correctly avoids implying parameters exist.

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 'Available configurations/tariffs of cloud servers with prices' which identifies the resource (server presets) and the action (listing). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_servers (actual servers) and list_os_images (OS images) via the term 'configurations/tariffs'.

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 implies that this tool is used when you need available server presets/tariffs, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. No exclusion criteria or situational context is given, so usage is only implied by the resource name.

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