list_drivers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists drivers and filters them but does not explicitly indicate read-only semantics, pagination behavior, or any side effects. While listing is generally read-only, the description fails to state that this operation has no destructive intent or how results are sorted/truncated. The description is too sparse to fully disclose behavior.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; it front-loads the tool's purpose but omits critical details. It is not poorly structured, but its brevity works against it. The sentence is acceptable as a starting point but not as a complete definition.

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 tool with 4 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It lacks explanations for limit, offset, and handle, and does not mention pagination or result ordering. Although an output schema exists, the description does not address how the results are shaped. An agent cannot reliably call this tool with correct parameter values based only on the description.

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 explain all parameters. It only explains 'query' (filters by name, description, category) and completely ignores 'limit', 'offset', and especially 'handle'. The description adds meaning to query but leaves the other three parameters unexplained. Given that 'handle' is an unusual parameter for a list operation, its omission is a significant gap. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 it is a driver directory (Справочник драйверов Рубеж) and that query filters by name, description, and category. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_devices, list_plans, and list_objects, which cover different resources. It could be more explicit about what a driver represents, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for driver lookups but does not mention exclusions or extensions, nor does it reference any sibling tool for contrast. The only usage hint is the filtering behavior, which is not enough to route an agent away from similar listing tools.

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