Карточка бота

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: secret variable values are hidden. This is a meaningful disclosure about response content that annotations do not cover.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose with a colon list of contents; the second adds a crucial detail about secrets. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 description covers what the tool returns, including the masking of secret variables, which is important given there is no output schema. With strong annotations and 100% parameter schema coverage, it is nearly complete, though it does not explicitly address error cases or access restrictions.

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 100%: both 'bot' and 'case' parameters have descriptive text. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool returns the full bot object ('Бот целиком') and enumerates its contents: settings, command menu, content variables, and scenario list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bots_list (list only) and bots_save (modify). The implicit verb is evident from the tool name and title.

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 this is the comprehensive single-bot retrieval tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as bots_list or bots_control. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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