Список ботов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context about the output contents (status, operation mode, dialogue counts, unread), which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the resource and purpose. It avoids unnecessary words while conveying the key output fields.

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 simple read-only list with one optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed and what information is included. Annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the description's field enumeration.

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 single parameter 'case' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including default behavior when omitted. The tool description itself does not add parameter details, so it relies on the schema, appropriate for baseline 3.

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 identifies the tool as listing bots for a case ('Боты дела'), with a specific verb ('список') and resource ('боты'). It also lists the returned aspects (status, mode, dialog counts, unread), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bots_get by its list-focused scope.

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 retrieving bots of a case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bots_get). No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, so it falls short of clear guidance.

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