Узлы расширений

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that results are scoped to a specific case and that it surfaces node fields and outputs, which is modest extra context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler; the case-scoping constraint is front-loaded. It is slightly dense with untranslated domain jargon ('динамические виды узлов'), but nothing is wasted.

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 one-optional-param read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it says what is returned (node types, fields, outputs). However it omits the return shape (array? keyed by node type?) and how the result feeds flows_save, so an agent still guesses at the payload structure.

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?

There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the default-case fallback behavior. The description's phrase 'этому делу' (this case) corroborates the scoping but adds no format, syntax, or selection detail beyond what the schema already provides — 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 names the resource (dynamic node types extension and extension_trigger available to a case) and what it returns (fields and outputs). It implicitly links to flows_save, distinguishing it from that write tool and from flows_list. The verb is elliptical — it never states 'lists' or 'returns' explicitly — but an agent can infer this is a discovery/introspection endpoint.

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 only usage signal is the trailing 'для flows_save' (for flows_save), which hints it belongs in a flow-authoring workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many siblings (flows_save, flows_get, extensions_get, extensions_templates). The agent must infer the sequencing itself.

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