Справочники панели

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

Annotations already fully cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: nodes are shared across platforms while settings variants differ ('сами узлы у платформ одни и те же, а варианты в их настройках разные'), with a concrete example (MAX lacks MarkdownV2 and voice attachments), plus the fact that each node's config is documented in node_kinds. 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 dense sentences with zero filler: content scope first, then alternative routing, then the critical platform caveat. Every clause earns its place, and the most actionable guidance (check node_kinds, pass platform) is positioned prominently rather than buried at the end.

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 catalog tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the catalog contents, when to use it, when not to (market tools for ready scripts), and a key filtering pitfall. The only gap is the lack of a concrete return-shape description per catalog type, though hints like 'полным составом их настроек' and 'с нужными ключами' partly compensate.

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 all three parameters (what, kind, platform) are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the platform parameter's purpose with the MAX example and mentions config-per-node, but it adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states, keeping it at the baseline of 3.

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 enumerates exactly what the catalog provides — 'платформы с их пределами, виды узлов сценария с полным составом их настроек, разделы маркета, виды ИИ-сервисов с нужными ключами и каталог прав' — making the resource scope explicit and concrete. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by explicitly directing ready-script needs to market_list and market_install, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is present: 'Смотрите node_kinds перед тем, как собирать или править сценарий' tells the agent to consult this tool before assembling or editing any script. It also names the alternative for ready-made scripts ('Готовые сценарии ищите в маркете: market_list и market_install') and instructs the agent to pass platform to avoid selecting settings variants unsupported by the target platform.

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