Справочники панели

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context beyond annotations — that each node's config lives in node_kinds, that platform variant differences matter, and concretely that MAX lacks MarkdownV2 and voice attachments. It does not mention permission requirements, but with annotations doing the heavy lifting this is a solid addition.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then actionable guidance, then the platform nuance. Every sentence is relevant, though the parenthetical MAX/MarkdownV2 detail is slightly tangential and could be trimmed without loss.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the five catalogs and their contents. Combined with 100% schema coverage for the five params, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the exact shape of each catalog response is left implicit.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all five parameters. The description nonetheless adds meaning for the platform parameter by explaining the rationale (nodes are shared across platforms but their setting variants differ) and giving a concrete MAX example, which goes beyond the enum-only schema text.

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 names a specific resource (a set of reference catalogs) and enumerates exactly what it returns: platforms with limits, scenario node kinds with their settings, market sections, AI service kinds with keys, and a permissions catalog. It explicitly separates itself from the market tools ('ready-made scenarios — look in market_list and market_install'), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear situational guidance: consult node_kinds before building or editing a scenario, and pass platform so variants match the bot's platform. It routes to alternatives (market_list, market_install) for ready-made scenarios. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' for the non-node_kinds catalogs, so it falls short of a full 5.

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