Мои задачи по заявкам

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful workflow context: these are tasks ready to execute from active requests, and completion requires reading requests_get and supplying the current revision. Return format and pagination remain unspecified.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the task scope, followed by the immediate completion workflow. No redundant or filler content.

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 full parameter documentation, read-only/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying output shape or sibling selection, but no critical gap remains.

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% and the single case parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default behavior. The description does not mention case at all, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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 states a specific resource and scope: tasks ready for completion from active requests assigned to the current user. This distinguishes it from the generic tasks_list sibling, though it does not explicitly name that or any other alternative.

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 actionable context by telling the agent to read requests_get and pass the current revision when completing a task. It does not explicitly compare against siblings such as tasks_list or requests_task_complete, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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