Каталог возможностей

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds practical context: pagination behavior and the workflow of retrieving an ID for subsequent calls. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose and then providing workflow context. Structure is excellent.

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 description covers the key workflow, pagination, and the fact that it returns IDs. With no output schema, it gives enough to use the tool correctly, though more detail on the return structure would make it fully 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Russian words or group' (mapping to query and group) and implies pagination (offset/limit), but does not explicitly define each parameter. It adds some meaning but not exhaustive detail.

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 function: finding operations by Russian words or group, and explicitly explains the workflow (obtain ID, then call wb_schema and wb_read). This distinguishes it from siblings and gives the agent a concrete purpose.

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 provides clear context: use it to search by Russian words or group, and notes that an empty search lists capabilities page by page. It also specifies follow-up calls, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the guidance is substantial.

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