Сценарии

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it aggregates across all bots when bot is absent, reports work status and node counts, and explains the per-type enabled-scenario constraint. This is meaningful context not visible in the schema or 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 three compact Russian sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then explains parameter behavior, then covers the scenario-type domain rule. Every clause contributes distinct, useful information.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description still conveys what the agent can expect: registered scenarios, the active one, and node counts. It also covers parameter defaults and the scenario kind constraint. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit response shape or pagination note, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what happens when bot is omitted — all bots of the case — and how case resolves when not specified: explicit value, then default case, then last opened. These behavioral defaults go beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 opens with concrete returned information: which scenarios are registered, which one is in work, and how many nodes they contain. This clearly identifies it as a read/list operation on the flows resource. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like flows_get, so differentiation from that single-scenario lookup remains implicit.

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 gives important usage context: omitting the bot parameter returns scenarios from all bots of the case, and the case parameter has a documented fallback order. This helps the agent decide when to call the tool and with which parameters. It does not explicitly state when to prefer flows_get or flows_versions instead, so exclusions and alternatives are only implied.

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