list_configurations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-oriented listing, reveals the returned concepts (configurations, platform, availability), and explains an important behavioral consequence: the config name should be sourced from this tool. It does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free behavior, but the query-like phrasing makes the intent clear.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important usage rule. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description provides the essential context an agent needs: what the tool lists, why it exists, and how its output feeds into other tools. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly mentions `config` as a parameter for other tools, not this one, and adds no unnecessary parameter 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 what the tool reports: which 1C configurations are loaded, on which platform, and what is available for them. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the entry point that supplies the `config` value other tools need.

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 explicit usage guidance: call this tool first, and if more than one configuration exists, all other tools require the `config` parameter whose value comes from this result. This directly tells an agent when and why to use it.

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