article_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read-only nature and that only 'СВОИХ' (own, i.e. authenticated) articles are returned. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, or what happens with large article counts, which matters for a list endpoint.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the endpoint and scope lead, followed by the returned fields and downstream usage. Slightly packed with parenthetical endpoint notation, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and clarifying id/slug meaning, which is exactly what an agent needs. Missing only pagination/ordering behavior, which is a minor gap for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It usefully documents the shape of the returned records even though it does not need to explain inputs.

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 and resource ('Список СВОИХ статей блога retensy') and pins the exact endpoint GET /api/articles/my. The scope word 'СВОИХ' plus the enumerated fields (id, slug, title, viewCount, dates) clearly separate it from the single-item article_get sibling.

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?

Tells the agent what the output is for: 'id нужен для article_update' and 'slug — публичный адрес /articles/{slug}', which is real routing guidance toward the update and public-URL use cases. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over article_get or article_publish, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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