Сверить неоднозначную запись Kwork

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the state machine (submission_unknown -> reconciled_succeeded / reconciled_absent), the evidence threshold for a negative verdict (multiple full negative observations across the visibility interval), the exclusion of ambiguous states, and the operator escalation path. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with the core action and no wasted sentences; each clause carries state-machine meaning. The mixed English/Russian prose is a minor readability cost for a single-language agent but does not bloat the text.

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 complex reconciliation tool with an output schema, the description supplies the outcome semantics and non-mutation guarantee an agent needs, and annotations cover safety. The only real gap is the missing contrast with get_write_status.

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% and the single parameter write_id is undocumented in the description. The schema's UUID pattern and 36-char bounds are self-explanatory, and 'submission_unknown' implies write_id identifies a pending submission, so the gap is tolerable but not compensated for.

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 ('Read back Kwork state for submission_unknown without resubmitting payload'), which is precise and distinct from write-performing siblings like commit_write. However, it never differentiates itself from the closely related sibling get_write_status, so an agent must still infer the boundary between the two.

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 trigger condition is explicit ('for submission_unknown'), and it names an escalation path when reconciliation fails (resolve-write). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_write_status, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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