execute_1c_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the most critical behavior: 'запросы только на чтение (SELECT), изменение данных не поддерживается' and 'Требует настроенного подключения к 1С'. This goes beyond general descriptions and helps the agent avoid misuse. Not all edge cases are covered, but the key constraints are transparent.

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 long and front-loaded with the core verb ('Выполняет'). Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second gives scope and examples, and the third highlights essential warnings. There is no unnecessary fluff.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description effectively communicates what data can be accessed, the read-only restriction, and the connection prerequisite. It does not describe the return format, but for an arbitrary query tool this is less critical since the query itself determines the result. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 100% — every parameter has a description in the schema, including an example for query_text. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 'Выполняет произвольный запрос к данным 1С' which is a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the scope ('любого справочника, регистра или документа БИТ.ФИНАНС') and gives concrete examples (сотрудников, ТМЦ, договоры). This clearly distinguishes it from specific sibling tools like get_1c_documents, as it handles arbitrary queries.

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 implies usage for general data retrieval from 1C and states the read-only limitation, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or mention when to prefer specific tools like get_1c_documents. It would benefit from saying 'Use this for custom queries; for predefined data, use the specific getters'.

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