list_assistants

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists assistants — it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, sorting, or whether auth is required. For a low-complexity read operation this is somewhat acceptable, but the description adds nothing beyond the bare purpose.

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?

A single concise sentence fully in the localized language with no filler. It's efficient but somewhat sparse — while appropriate for a simple list operation, it could front-load a hint about the return type without bloating 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 parameterless listing tool, the description is minimally adequate. An agent knows what it does, but without an output schema or any return-format hint, the agent can't predict the shape of results. The description is complete on inputs but thin on outputs.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters; no compensation is needed.

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 'Список доступных ассистентов GigaChat' (List of available GigaChat assistants) states a specific verb ('list') and a specific resource, distinguishing it from siblings like embed_text or generate_image. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely related list_models sibling, which is a minor gap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or how it relates to list_models or chat. An agent must infer when listing assistants is appropriate.

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