bsl_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses default severity filtering, suppressed diagnostics summary, output shape, special cases for code/min_severity, and execution queue behavior. It also explains that checks are per-file without configuration 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 densely informative and well structured, with addressing modes first and behavior details second. Every sentence adds useful operational or filtering information, and the formatting keeps it scannable.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers input constraints, default behavior, output structure, filtering options, and performance-related context. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has zero description coverage, but the tool description compensates by explaining each addressing mode: module_full_name format, path scope, text snippet requirements, and the meaning of code and min_severity filters. This makes the parameters significantly clearer than the bare schema.

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 identifies the tool as code diagnostics ('Диагностики кода') and explains it lints 1C code with different input modes. It is clearly distinct from sibling navigation, complexity, and reindex 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?

The description provides clear usage context: exactly one of module_full_name, path, or text must be supplied, and it explains default severity behavior and per-file scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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