get_segments

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Получение' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention any other behaviors like pagination or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single short sentence, concise and front-loaded. It states the core action and object without fluff, earning its place with minimal waste, though it could arguably be too minimal for a complex tool.

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?

Given the tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly. It lacks information about when to use it, what the response looks like, and any behavioral caveats. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the overall context is thin.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without needing to compensate for missing schema information.

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 states a clear verb ('Получение' = getting) and resource ('сегментов клиента' = customer segments), which is distinct from sibling tools like get_customer. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or specifics of segments, so it is clear but not highly differentiating.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_customer or run_operation. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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