dynamic_list_current_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates a read-only purpose and explicitly warns against destructive replacement of settings. It does not describe the exact output shape or broader UI side effects, but it covers the main behavioral guardrail that an agent must know.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The remaining sentences each earn their place by disambiguating the sibling tool and giving safety guidance. Only minor redundancy could be trimmed, but the structure is strong.

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 strong on scenario and behavioral context, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations, and close/session_id are left undefined. An agent could still invoke the tool based on the defaults, but cannot confidently predict the return value or side effects of the close flag.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It mentions a 'section' in passing, but it does not explain the close boolean, the semantics of section values, or session_id. The parameter names alone are not enough for reliable invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it opens the dynamic-list settings form and reads currently configured filter/order items. It also explicitly distinguishes the 'Доступные поля' table and references the sibling dynamic_list_settings_available_fields, making it easy to tell apart from related tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use dynamic_list_settings_available_fields when fields that can be added are needed, and read current settings before changing them. It also warns not to clear or replace existing filters/orders unless explicitly required, which directly prevents misuse.

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