Сценарии бота

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that it reports the active scenario and node counts, which is helpful behavioral context beyond the basic safety profile.

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 sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 list operation with two parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the user exactly what to expect (scenarios, active status, node counts) and the annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no additional context is needed.

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 (100% coverage). The tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameters or their usage, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema, matching 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 explains what information is returned (which scenarios exist, which is active, node counts), clearly indicating a list/overview operation. It distinguishes from siblings like flows_get by focusing on the aggregate state, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list'.

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 usage context is implied by the described output: use this when you need an overview of a bot's scenarios. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over flows_get/flows_versions or mention limitations like pagination, so guidance is minimal.

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