Открыть сценарий

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by specifying that the tool returns the entire graph along with diagnostics like 'connections to nowhere, missing trigger, unreachable nodes'. This goes beyond the safety profile provided by annotations and describes the tool's analytical behavior.

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, concise phrase that immediately states the tool's scope and content. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 relatively simple getter with no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of the returned data and even highlights diagnostic features. It does not cover error behavior or the optional 'case' parameter, but the schema and annotations cover most context, making it substantial enough.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions for bot, case, and flow. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high 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 title 'Открыть сценарий' (Open scenario) combined with the description 'Сценарий целиком...' clearly identifies this as a getter for a complete flow graph. It explicitly lists what is returned (all nodes, parameters, connections, graph remarks) and thereby distinguishes it from sibling tools like flows_list, which likely provides a list of flows.

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 implies use for retrieving full scenario details but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as flows_list or flows_versions. The phrase 'Сценарий целиком' suggests detailed inspection, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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