Прочитать сохранённый результат

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: reading is done in parts, nested previews are limited, and nextOffset refers only to the saved result, not to the WB API.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds useful information about paging, pointers, and preview limitations.

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 key behavioral caveats such as preview limits and offset scoping, but because there is no output schema it should more fully describe pagination semantics and the remaining parameters. It is adequate but leaves several gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains arrayPointer and textOffset meaningfully, but it leaves resultId, limit, offset, and textLimit undocumented in prose. With six parameters and zero schema descriptions, covering only two is insufficient.

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 verb ('Читает' - reads) and a specific resource ('сохранённый ответ' - saved response), and further clarifies it reads in parts. This distinguishes it from siblings like wb_read or wb_status, which relate to live API operations rather than saved results.

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 practical guidance for using parameters (arrayPointer, textOffset) and warns about preview limits, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly compared with sibling tools.

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