Список дел

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the access scope and response contents (role, rights, bot/unread counters), enriching behavioral understanding without contradicting the 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information relative to the annotations.

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 straightforward list tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is sufficient: it names the resource, access scope, and returned data fields. It does not describe pagination or the exact array format, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this a minor gap.

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 only parameter (include_archived) is fully described in the schema with a default value, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 states the tool lists all accessible cases ('Все дела, к которым есть доступ') and specifies the included data: role, rights, bot and unread counters. This clearly identifies it as the list operation for cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cases_get or 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 provides context that the tool returns only cases the user has access to and includes an optional archived filter, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over cases_get or other list tools. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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