Заготовки ответов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: replies are ordered by insertion frequency with the most frequently used at the top, and it explains the relationship to dialogs_reply. No contradiction 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?

Three short sentences accomplish purpose, ordering behavior, and cross-tool routing with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence adds 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?

For a read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the list contains, how it is ordered, and how to send a listed reply elsewhere. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema fully documents the optional 'case' parameter, including default behavior when it is omitted. The description itself does not add further parameter detail, so with 100% schema description coverage 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 clearly identifies replies_list as listing operator canned responses ('Заготовленные ответы оператора') with concrete examples. It is easily distinguished from siblings like replies_save, replies_delete, and dialogs_reply by naming the action and cross-referencing the send operation.

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 communicates when to use this tool (to view pre-prepared operator replies) and even points to the alternative for sending a reply: dialogs_reply reply=«название». It does not explicitly state exclusion conditions versus replies_save/replies_delete, but the listing purpose is clear enough.

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