Материал целиком

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds useful behavioral context: the material can be referenced by name ('Материал можно назвать по имени — идентификатор не обязателен') and that chunks=true reveals the chunking used for model ingestion. These insights go beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each delivering a distinct piece of information: the tool's purpose, a comparison to the list, and the optional chunks behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only retrieval tool with full parameter descriptions and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns (the material's text), highlights the key usage context (list doesn't include text), and covers the optional chunks flag. It doesn't detail the return format or error handling, but given the simplicity and existing schema, this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description reinforces the name-or-ID flexibility for the document parameter and explains the chunks option, but these details are already present in the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately states the tool's core function: retrieving the full text of a material ('Материал с его текстом: что в нём написано на самом деле'). It also distinguishes itself from the material list, which does not include text, and mentions the optional chunks output. This is a specific verb+resource definition with clear differentiation from sibling tools like knowledge_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 description explicitly contrasts this tool with the material list: 'Список материалов текста не отдаёт' (the list does not give the text), implying this tool should be used when the actual text is needed. It also explains when not to use chunks by default because they 'повторяют текст и удваивают ответ'. While it doesn't name all alternatives, it provides clear guidance for the primary alternative.

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