get_1c_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the main prerequisite (configured connection), implies a read-only operation, and describes the return content (list of objects with attributes). It does not discuss potential large response sizes or pagination, but for this simple metadata tool it provides meaningful context.

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 core function and followed by usage guidance and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description gives sufficient context about the returned data (list of objects and attributes) and the connection prerequisite. It could be more complete with a note on result limits or pagination, but overall it covers the essential context for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including detailed enum meanings for object_type and the effect of include_attributes. The description adds only general purpose context and does not elaborate per-parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool returns 1C configuration metadata, explicitly listing the kind of objects (directories, documents, registers) and mentioning 'their attributes'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling query tools by noting it should be used to learn correct table and field names before execute_1c_query.

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 context: use before execute_1c_query to discover names, and it notes the prerequisite of a configured 1C connection. However, it does not mention when not to use it or reference alternatives for metadata retrieval.

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