Справочники панели

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive intent. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining that node configurations are documented in node_kinds, which helps the agent anticipate the content returned. No contradictions.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the purpose. It lists the catalog types efficiently and provides a specific usage recommendation. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes value.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, content, and provides a direct usage pointer (node_kinds). It does not detail return format or pagination, but the simplicity and annotations make the description reasonably 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% for both parameters (what and kind). The description adds a conceptual hint about node_kinds being the source for node configs, but does not elaborate on the syntax or additional semantics of the 'kind' parameter. The schema already provides the necessary details.

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 the tool's role as a catalog/reference: it lists node kinds, flow templates, AI services, and permissions. It explicitly mentions the full set of node configuration settings, distinguishing it from action-oriented sibling tools like cases_delete or flows_save.

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 explicit guidance to consult node_kinds before assembling or editing a scenario, indicating a specific when-to-use. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the catalogue nature is evident from the context and sibling tools.

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