Карточка публикации

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying what the card contains and that with_graph includes the graph itself. No contradictions with 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The core content is front-loaded ('Публикация целиком') and every clause contributes useful information about the response or parameter behavior.

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 read-only retrieval tool with three parameters, the description covers the main contents of the returned card and the optional graph. It is moderately complete, though it does not explicitly state the output format or the default value of with_graph, which is left to the schema.

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%, so all parameters have baseline descriptions. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that case controls whether the response shows existing usage in a case and that with_graph returns the graph for pre-install inspection, enriching the meaning of these parameters.

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 identifies the resource (публикация) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: description, script composition, version history, and optional case usage. It stops short of a strong verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from market_list, but the scope is very clear.

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 a concrete use case for with_graph ('посмотреть узлы до установки') and explains the effect of the case parameter. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over market_list, market_install, or flows_get, leaving the choice of tool largely implied.

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