Открыть дело

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the current user's rights and a summary, and details default case selection when no case is specified. 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads 'case card' and lists included elements efficiently. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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 read-only get tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return content (rights + summary) and default case behavior. It does not mention pagination or errors, but these are not critical for this type of operation.

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 fully covers the single parameter (case name/identifier, default behavior). The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 a case card with current user's rights and a summary including bots, dialogs, messages, pending actions, knowledge bases, and participants. This specific content distinguishes it from siblings like cases_list (listing cases) and cases_save (modifying cases).

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 to view case details and user permissions, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The parameter behavior (default case or last opened) provides some usage context, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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