check_1c_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full burden. It only says the tool checks or reviews code, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, destructive potential, or output characteristics. The 'extended' parameter is left unexplained.

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 a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it is too terse for a tool with three parameters and 0% schema coverage; more detail is needed to be effective.

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 tool with 3 parameters (1 required, 1 enum, 1 boolean) and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter options, extended behavior, and return value. Siblings like 'explain_1c_syntax' imply a need for clearer differentiation.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It mentions 'syntax check or code review' which partially maps to the 'check_type' enum but ignores 'logic' and 'performance'. The 'code' and 'extended' parameters are not described at all.

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 the tool does 'syntax check or code review' of BSL code, which is a clear verb-resource pair. However, it omits the 'logic' and 'performance' check types available in the schema, and does not distinguish from the sibling 'explain_1c_syntax'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like explain_1c_syntax. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for invocation are provided.

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