Выгрузить переписку

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: the dialog is not marked as read ('Прочитанной переписка от этого не становится') and the export is recorded in the case journal ('сама выгрузка отмечается в журнале дела'). This is useful and does not contradict 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 compact: three sentences, each carrying distinct information about output format, use cases, and side effects plus the alternative tool. It is slightly embellished with the phrase 'ровно то, что панель отдаёт файлом', but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format, the purpose, the side effects, and the sibling alternative. The input schema covers parameter details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 (dialog and case) are already documented with clear descriptions and default behavior for case. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 exports the whole conversation as one ready-made text with a header and messages in order, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from dialogs_history, which is the sibling most likely to be confused with it.

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?

It explicitly says the export is suitable for attaching to dispute analysis or sharing with someone without panel access. It also names dialogs_history as the better tool for per-message analysis and deep history, giving a concrete when-to-use vs alternative guidance.

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