Задачи сотрудников

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the required BITRIX24_WEBHOOK_URL with crm/task/user scopes, and a rate limit of 2 req/s that is self-throttled. 'Только чтение' merely restates the annotation, so not a 5.

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?

A dense but well front-loaded paragraph: purpose and scope first, then return shape, then usage examples, then auth/rate-limit caveats. Every clause carries information, though the compact Russian phrasing packs several concerns into one block.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope semantics, the response shape (count, by_responsible, tasks fields), auth prerequisites and rate limiting. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for scope (all three enum values explained) and responsible_id (filter by responsible). It omits the limit parameter and its 100/500 bounds, leaving one of three params unexplained.

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+resource (list of open tasks) and enumerates the scope semantics (overdue/today/open), which cleanly separates it from write siblings like b24_create_task and b24_complete_task. The example questions ('what's overdue for managers', 'what tasks for today') further pin down the intent.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it via the two example questions and the scope parameter. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g. vs b24_pipeline_report or b24_stale_deals), so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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