Выгрузить сценарий

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying that the response is ready-to-use JSON in the operbots.flow format and identical to the panel's download output.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: the first front-loads the core contract, the second explains how the result should be consumed. Every sentence earns its place.

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 export with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the response format and its intended downstream usage. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but none is needed given 100% schema coverage.

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 flow as a single operbots.flow object, matching the panel's Download button. It names the specific resource and output format, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with flows_get or other siblings.

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 explains the intended downstream use: pass the JSON to flows_import via the document field or save it as a copy near code. This gives practical context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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