evaluate_expression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool evaluates an expression and returns a result, but does not mention side effects, read-only nature, error handling, or security implications. For a tool that could potentially execute arbitrary 1C code, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main action and purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it could specify expected return types or limitations, but given the low complexity, it is mostly complete.

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 already provides a clear description of the 'expression' parameter and an example. The tool description does not add further meaning, so baseline score of 3 applies as schema coverage is 100%.

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 states the verb 'вычислить' and resource 'выражение на языке 1С', and adds purpose 'для простых вычислений и проверок'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like execute_code or execute_query, missing a chance to clarify when to use this tool over others.

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 a usage hint ('для простых вычислений и проверок') implying it's for simple cases, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it suggest alternatives. The guidance is minimal.

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