Список баз 1С

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already declare the safety profile, and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: that results identify a primary database and that the names are the input keys for the rest of the toolset. It does not discuss permissions, enumeration scope, or failure behavior for unconfigured servers, so it is not exhaustive.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, how the result is consumed downstream, and when to call it. The most decision-relevant information (which databases are available) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 no-parameter discovery tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, this covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, that one entry is primary, and how to use the values afterwards. Nothing important is left implicit.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and nothing more is required of the description for the schema. It does add cross-tool meaning by telling the agent where the database value produced here is used elsewhere, which is a genuine value-add.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Показывает настроенные базы 1С') and states the scope precisely: the databases this server is connected to and which one is primary. It also distinguishes it from its siblings by explaining that the returned names are consumed by the 'database' parameter of other tools, so an agent knows this is the entry point rather than another analytics read.

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 gives explicit call triggers ('если нужно понять, какие базы доступны или сравнить данные нескольких баз'), which covers both the discovery and the multi-database comparison cases. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it falls just below the top mark.

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