Прогнать сценарий

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing key behavioral traits: dialog is not saved, delays are skipped, external requests are not executed, and AI nodes consume real model limits. This clarifies why readOnlyHint is false and adds important side-effect information that annotations alone do not convey.

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 compact and well-structured: three sentences, the main purpose first, followed by behavioral constraints and a critical warning about AI usage. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool reports (trigger, steps, bot reply) and covers key behavioral aspects and caveats. The schema covers parameter semantics, and the description completes the picture with side effects and exclusions, making the tool fully actionable.

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 already covers all six parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds general context about what the simulation returns (trigger, steps, reply), but it does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Проверяет' (checks/verifies) against the resource 'сценарий' (scenario) and clearly explains the simulation outcome: which trigger fired, which steps passed, and what the bot would reply. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flows_get or flows_publish by focusing on testing behavior rather than retrieving or modifying the flow.

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 phrase 'без Telegram' (without Telegram) establishes the primary use case: test a scenario before or without involving Telegram. It implies an alternative (actual Telegram execution) and describes limitations, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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