Добавить материал

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that processing is asynchronous (material starts in pending), and that repeated calls create duplicates. This adds meaningful behavioral context useful for the agent.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by two important behavioral notes. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: purpose, asynchronous behavior, duplicate prevention, and how to verify the result. It could mention edge cases like providing both text and URL, but overall it's sufficiently complete.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description's general statement about text or URL adds minimal new meaning; the per-parameter details are already in the schema.

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 it adds text or a URL page to the knowledge base ("Кладёт в базу текст или страницу по ссылке"), using a specific verb and resource. It also implicitly distinguishes from update tools by emphasizing that repeated calls create duplicates, not updates.

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 provides practical usage context: background parsing, pending state, and a suggestion to check via knowledge_list. It warns against using repeated calls for updating, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative for updates (e.g., knowledge_save).

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