get_1c_access_groups

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits itself. It discloses a dependency (requires configured 1C connection) and implies a read-only operation through 'Получает'. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is non-mutating or provide details on error behavior or response characteristics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main function, followed by usage scenarios and a necessary prerequisite. It contains no redundant or filler text, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description reasonably sets expectations by stating it returns access groups, assigned users, and roles. It also mentions the connection prerequisite and two primary use cases. Some details about response format or error handling are absent, but for a simple lookup tool, the description is sufficiently 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal semantics beyond what is already structured. The phrases 'все группы' and 'конкретного сотрудника' loosely map to group_name and user_login, but the schema already provides comparable context.

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 that the tool retrieves access groups and assigned users from the 1C database, with specific use cases of finding a user's roles or listing all groups. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_1c_query or list_instructions by focusing on access group data.

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 when to use the tool (to find out real roles of an employee or list all groups) and notes a prerequisite (configured connection to 1C). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, making the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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