Открыть рассылку

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no scope, no permission note, no error behavior — it only lists the fields of the returned object.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no padding, so there is no wasted text. However, the structure is a bare noun list rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, so brevity here reflects under-specification as much as conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing what comes back, and it does imply the returned object's composition (text, buttons, attachment, targeting, state). But it omits what the tool does, its scope, and any behavior, leaving the definition only minimally viable for a 2-parameter get tool.

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 'case' and 'broadcast' are documented in the schema, including fallback resolution for 'case'. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried semantics 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 never states a verb or an action — it only enumerates the broadcast's contents ('текст, кнопки по рядам, вложение, условия отбора и состояние'). An agent can infer that this returns broadcast details, which is better than a pure restatement of the title, but the tool's actual operation is left to inference and is not distinguished from siblings like broadcasts_preview or broadcasts_save.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as broadcasts_list (to enumerate) or broadcasts_preview (to render). The agent must guess the retrieval context entirely from the name.

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