bsl_task_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output record shape and the meaning of the status values, which is useful. But it never states that the operation is read-only analysis, says nothing about cost/pagination on a potentially large repo history, and does not describe what happens if neither source mode is supplied.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the record schema is front-loaded. The internal line break and the trailing mode sentence are slightly loose but still earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the status semantics are a helpful addition. But for a 6-parameter, non-annotated diff-analysis tool, the description leaves parameter individual meaning, mode selection, and failure behavior unresolved, which is a clear gap.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It groups five of them into two coherent source modes (repo+base+rev vs baseline+target), which is meaningful, but it gives no individual semantics for rev, base, baseline, or target, and omits paths entirely; the cross-reference to bsl_rules_check pushes the agent to another tool to understand usage.

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?

Names a specific resource (new and modified methods of a task) and enumerates the returned fields, including the «новый»/«изменён» status distinction, which is a real differentiator from sibling tools like bsl_definition or bsl_references. The verb is only implied ('returns a list'), and there is no direct naming of which sibling it replaces.

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 two accepted source modes (repo+base+rev or baseline+target) are stated, and it defers to bsl_rules_check for their exact semantics, which hints at when this tool applies (task/diff analysis). However, there is no explicit 'use this when… / use X instead' statement and no guidance on choosing between the two modes.

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