Поиск проектов Kwork

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the response preserves full descriptions and unknown upstream fields, and returns a query fingerprint and watermark suited to future delta polling, which matters for how an agent caches and re-queries.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then mode conditions, then return/behavioral traits, with no filler sentences. Compact for the amount of information conveyed, though the mode-condition sentence is dense and could be slightly clearer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 9-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves most filter parameters undocumented, which is the main completeness gap.

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 carries the full burden and only partially compensates: it explains 'mode' semantics and the category_ids constraint and labels 'cursor' as opaque. The remaining six filters (query, price_from/to, offers_from/to, hiring_from) get no explanation, leaving hiring_from's 0-100 range ambiguous.

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 ('Получить страницу проектов') plus the distinguishing trait of the tool: an explicit discovery mode with an opaque cursor. This is clearly more than a restatement of the name, though it never names the sibling get_project or explains how it differs from fetching a single project.

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 per-mode conditions: 'favorites' requires at least one favorite category, 'all' covers the whole exchange, and 'category_ids' requires a non-empty list. That is real selection guidance for the required enum. It stops short of saying when to prefer this discovery tool over siblings like get_project or search_users.

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