search_1c_platform_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the operation is an offline/local full-text search, lists the indexed sources and versions, and explains that queries can be in Russian or English. There are no hidden side effects or destructive behaviors implied.

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 longer than average, but almost every sentence earns its place: entry point, coverage, language, filtering, and disambiguation. It is front-loaded with 'НАЧИНАТЬ ОТСЮДА' and organized topically, though it repeats the offline/local idea and re-lists coverage after the initial scope sentence.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and several siblings, the description covers selection, coverage, and filtering well. It would be more complete if it described the result shape or how search results connect to sibling tools like get_1c_platform_help_document, but the absence of those details does not block correct invocation.

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 covers all parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that the source filter narrows search to a section and directing the agent to list_1c_platform_help_sources for valid values. It also restates query language support. It does not add much for root, limit, or explain, but those are already self-descriptive in the 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 identifies a specific verb ('search') and resource ('local 1C:Enterprise knowledge base'), then enumerates exactly what it covers: syntax helper, platform docs, v8std, BSP, VanessaAutomation, and YAxUnit. It also sets the expected entry point ('НАЧИНАТЬ ОТСЮДА') and distinguishes the tool from online v8std and live-syntax lookups.

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?

It explicitly says when to start here (documentation questions, not configuration code), when to use a different tool (live infobase syntax → get_bsl_syntax_help), and how to narrow scope via the source filter with a pointer to list_1c_platform_help_sources. The offline/online comparison with MCP v8std also helps an agent choose between alternatives.

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