list_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, result limits, filtering effects, or any potential side effects. The only contextual addition is that instructions are 'загруженных в базу знаний MCP сервера', but this does not convey behavior beyond the data source.

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 concise, consisting of exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second lists the output fields. It is front-loaded, free of unnecessary detail, and every word contributes value.

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 simple list tool with two optional filters, the description adequately conveys essential purpose and return structure. The schema covers parameter details, and the description confirms the fields in the response. However, it does not mention the availability of filters or contrast with search tools, which leaves some ambiguity, hence not a perfect score.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (filter_code and filter_keyword) with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics and does not even mention that filters exist, so the score matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Возвращает список инструкций пользователя 1С.БИТ' (Returns a list of 1C.BIT user instructions), clearly identifying the action and resource. It also specifies the output structure (id, code, name, source), which further clarifies the scope and differentiates it from search-oriented sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like search_instructions or semantic_search_instructions. The description simply states what the tool does without mentioning alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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