get_object_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool retrieves metadata but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation (though implied by 'get'), nor does it disclose permissions, performance, or side effects. The lack of explicit read-only hint reduces transparency.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences. The first describes what the tool does and what it returns; the second gives a usage directive. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the types of metadata returned (recv, tabular sections, forms, layouts, movements), which is helpful. It lacks details on output structure, error handling, or object existence checks, but for a single-parameter read tool, it is sufficiently complete 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 single parameter 'full_name' has a schema description with examples (e.g., 'Справочник.Номенклатура'), providing full coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail; it mainly explains what metadata is returned, which is useful but not essential for parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Получить' (get) and specifies the resource 'подробные метаданные объекта 1С', listing specific metadata types (реквизиты, табличные части, формы, макеты, движения). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object_attributes or get_form_structure by combining all metadata into one comprehensive call.

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 'Используй для анализа структуры конкретного объекта', providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives (e.g., if only specific metadata is needed, use get_object_attributes or get_form_structure), so guidance is slightly incomplete.

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