list_1c_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required connection and lists returned fields, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention side effects, pagination, or error behavior. The requirements for .env variables add some behavioral context, but it's limited.

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 purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information (purpose, return fields, prerequisites). No redundancy or filler.

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, the description covers the main purpose, return content, and a critical prerequisite. The lack of annotations is compensated by the clear read-only implication and explicit connection requirements. It doesn't explain all edge cases, but for a list tool with full schema coverage, it's largely sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. It mentions return fields that partially relate to filters, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, so it neither detracts nor adds value.

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 obtains a list of 1C users from the working database, using the verb 'получает' and specifying the resource. It also lists the returned fields (ФИО, логин, должность, подразделение, группы доступа), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_1c_access_groups or 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 provides a prerequisite (requires configured 1C connection via ONEC_* env vars) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool relative to alternatives like search_instructions or get_1c_documents. It implies usage for retrieving user lists but no exclusions or alternative mentions.

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