Карта объектов базы

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are grouped by class and that filtering is optional, but says nothing about result volume, truncation, or whether the map is complete for large databases. Modest added value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then the usage rationale, then the filtering options. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

With an output schema present and all three optional parameters documented, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is the unstated relationship to read.schema.describe_entity, which would make the discovery workflow explicit.

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 100%, including the enum for class and the note that database takes a name from list_databases with a default fallback, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the class and name-substring filtering, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns a map of 1C business objects grouped by class (catalogs, documents, registers, enums). That is concrete and distinguishable from the write.* siblings, but it never mentions read.schema.describe_entity, the closest read-only sibling, so an agent must infer the two-step discovery flow on its own.

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?

"Используйте, чтобы понять, какие данные доступны в базе" gives a clear when-to-use context (initial exploration of the database), and the filtering sentence tells the agent how to narrow the listing. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming the alternative (describe_entity) for drilling into a single object.

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