Карточка диалога

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about the informational content returned (scenario position, expected answer, variables), going beyond what annotations alone provide. There is 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 with a colon-led list. It is front-loaded with the core subject and each listed item adds useful detail. No filler or 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 simple read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will learn from the call. It outlines the key aspects of the dialog card without needing to specify return format. Minor lack of error/edge-case handling is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 ('case' and 'dialog') have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so it cannot exceed the baseline of 3.

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 conveys the tool's focus: it provides the dialog and its position in the scenario, including current step, expected response, path, planned steps, and variables. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dialogs_list or dialogs_history. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on the tool name for the action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives (e.g., dialogs_list, dialogs_history, dialogs_reply). It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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