iiko: произвольный запрос

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns HTTP status, correlationId, and response body, and mentions automatic v2 authorization. This provides key behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover error handling or side effects.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes all essential information without fluff.

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?

The tool is a generic HTTP caller with four parameters and no output schema. The description explains return values and auth, and provides an example. It is mostly complete, though it does not elaborate on error handling or how auth credentials are resolved for apiLogin.

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 schema already describes all four parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value with an example (method=POST, path=/api/1/organizations, body={}) and the statement 'any method and path', which clarifies usage beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 this is a universal debug call to the iiko API with any method and path, which distinguishes it from the specific sibling tools. The verb 'вызов' (call) and resource 'iiko API' make the purpose explicit.

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 implies usage for debugging or arbitrary requests via 'универсальный отладочный вызов', but it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of the specific sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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