get_metadata_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states it 'returns a list' without disclosing safety (e.g., read-only nature), required permissions, or potential side effects. The word 'get' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the action, the second describes the output, and the third gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. However, it lacks details about the structure of the returned tree and potential error conditions, which could be useful for an agent.

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 has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by explaining the return type (list of objects by type) and purpose, which is sufficient given the lack of parameters.

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 tool retrieves the metadata tree of the 1C configuration, listing objects by type (directories, documents, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_object_metadata' (which targets a single object) by its broad scope and explicitly mentions using it for database structure review.

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 explicitly says 'Use to review the database structure,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling list implies other tools for specific metadata needs.

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