Открыть дело

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about what the returned case card contains, including current user rights in the case and the list of summary categories. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentence with no filler words. It lists multiple summary categories, which is informative, but the long list makes it slightly heavy—still reasonably concise for the richness it conveys.

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 two optional parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool returns: user permissions and a composite case summary. It also clarifies the date-bound correspondence aspect referenced by the 'days' parameter.

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%, and both parameters are already documented in the input schema: 'case' explains the matching and fallback behavior, and 'days' says 7/14/30 with a default of 7. The description does not need to add further parameter-level meaning.

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 defines the tool as a case card ('Карточка дела') that returns the current user's rights and a summary of bots, dialogs, correspondence, deferred actions, knowledge bases, and participants. This distinguishes it from cases_list, cases_save, and cases_delete.

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 the tool is used for viewing/opening a single case with details and rights, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of sibling tools like cases_list or bots_get. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mention is present.

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