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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: asynchronous execution, immediate job_id return, progress/result via build_status, and possible multi-minute duration. It omits the destructive/overwrite nature of a rebuild and any resource or concurrency constraints, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the pipeline, then the async contract and duration. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition.

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 an async pipeline tool with an output schema covering the job_id return, the description supplies the essential execution model, timing, and status-routing. It would be fully complete with a note on overwriting the existing index and any permission requirements, but the core is present.

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%, so all six parameters (lang, force, cleanup, sources, chunk_size, chunk_overlap) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource ('rebuild the index') and even itemizes the pipeline stages (.hbk unpack -> md-corpus consolidation -> indexing). It is clear what the tool does, though it never states what it is not for relative to siblings like search or discover.

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 implies the tool is used to (re)build the index and explicitly routes status/progress checks to the sibling build_status. However, it never states when a rebuild is warranted versus alternatives, nor when not to use it, leaving selection to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is async and that the result surface includes running/done/error plus progress, but it says nothing about permissions, whether state is retained after completion, or timeout/expiry behavior for job_ids.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the operation, the input (job_id), and the observable outcomes. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter, non-nested status tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is needed to invoke it and even previews the state values. Minor gaps in workflow placement (when/how often to poll) keep it from a 5, but the return format does not need explaining given the output schema.

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% and the single job_id parameter is documented as the identifier coming from 'build'. The description adds no format, length, or lifecycle detail beyond that, so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema — the baseline 3 for high coverage 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+resource: it returns the status of an asynchronous build identified by job_id, and even enumerates the possible result states (running/done/error + progress). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'build' tool that presumably initiates the job, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'асинхронной' (asynchronous) and the required job_id signal that this is a polling tool used after a build has been started, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on polling cadence, and no named alternative. A caller must infer the workflow from the tool name and siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one meaningful trait beyond the schema: that this is the *effective* (merged/computed) configuration rather than raw stored values. However, it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or freshness/caching behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, front-loading the purpose and then listing the covered fields. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but every token earns its place for a zero-argument getter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose, and for a zero-param read tool the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is that key fields are listed redundantly rather than using that space for usage context or the relationship to config_set.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but there is nothing for it to clarify on that dimension.

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+resource: it returns the current (effective) settings and enumerates the key sections covered (embedder, search.backend, bin_dir, books). An agent can tell it is a read-only config reader, but it does not explicitly name the sibling config_set as its write counterpart, so it is clear without full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named even though config_set sits in the sibling list as the obvious counterpart. The read-vs-write intent is only implied by the verb.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the write to v8help.toml is atomic. However it omits mutation semantics that matter here, e.g. whether supplied values merge with existing config or replace it, and whether invalid keys are rejected or silently ignored.

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?

Extremely tight: the mutating action and its atomic persistence are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact key reference list that earns its length by documenting valid configuration keys. No filler sentences.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the parameter is documented, so those needs are met. As a mutation tool with zero annotations, though, the description should say whether updates are partial/merge-style, whether invalid keys error, and whether a restart is needed for changes to take effect.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'values' object parameter is already documented, but the description goes beyond the schema by enumerating the recognized keys and giving an enum for one of them (search.backend: fts|hybrid|vectors). That compensates for the schema's permissive additionalProperties, which otherwise gives no key validation guidance.

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 specific verb and resource ('Изменить настройки' / change settings) and adds the persistence target ('сохранить в v8help.toml, атомарно'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not explicitly name the read counterpart (config_get) as the sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'change settings'; there is no statement of when to use this versus config_get or config_get-style reads, nor any prerequisites or warnings. The agent can infer it is the write path for configuration, but nothing is made explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only reconnaissance operation by listing what it 'shows,' but never states side-effect behavior or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema partly compensates by documenting return values.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a tight enumerated list of discovered items. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument tool with no redundant 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 zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what will be surfaced (tools/embedders/index state), and the output schema covers the exact return shape. The only gap is the absence of explicit read-only/behavioral framing in the face of missing annotations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are fabricated or misrepresented.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Показать') and enumerates the specific resources discovered: the 1C platform bin catalog, 1C:EDT CLI install, embedders on localhost ports (LM Studio/Ollama), and index state. It is far more specific than a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling config_get.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among siblings like config_get or config_set. The 'autodiscovery' framing implies it is an environment-reconnaissance/setup step, but the agent must infer this rather than being told.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that long articles (>4000 chars) are truncated to a chunk list plus first chunk, that chunk=N retrieves a specific part, and that array batching is capped at 2-10 articles / max_chars. It omits auth requirements and not-found behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the id-form and truncation rules in two tight sentences. Every clause conveys a distinct behavioral fact 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. Given the three-parameter tool with batching and chunking complexity, the description covers the important behaviors; only edge cases (missing id, chunk out of range) are 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the terse schema text: id as string vs array with the 2-10 batching limit, max_chars as an aggregate response cap for arrays, and chunk as the mechanism for reading truncated long articles.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieve the full text of a help page identified by filename (without .md) or numeric id. Purpose is unambiguous, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search, related, or discover, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use it once you already have an id. It gives mechanics (batching, chunking) but no guidance on when to prefer this over search or related for locating content, and no exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two distinct behaviors: a section-level summary when section is omitted, and page groups when section is supplied. This is useful, but it omits safety context (e.g., read-only nature) and any operational details like pagination or limits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the resource name and then contrasts the two parameter states. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition or 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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, a complete schema description, and an output schema, the description is largely complete because it clarifies both usage modes and the effect of the parameter. The only minor gap is absence of guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the concrete effect of supplying or omitting the section parameter: it changes the output from a section summary to page groups for the chosen section.

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 the resource (table of contents / hierarchy) and distinguishes two modes based on the optional section parameter, so an agent can tell what the tool returns. However, it does not name or contrast with sibling tools like config_get or discover, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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 explains what happens with and without the section parameter but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as config_get or search. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read that returns both link directions, but says nothing about permissions, whether results are paginated or truncated, or how the two link sets are ordered or combined.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness trades away usability for brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and this is a simple one-parameter read tool. Still, an agent gets no signal on usage context or on how this differs from sibling retrieval tools like get_page and hierarchy.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it accepts a filename or numeric id. The description's 'по id' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific resource and scope: related pages, defined as outgoing and incoming links, keyed by id. That distinguishes it from get_page and hierarchy without opening schemas, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_page or hierarchy instead, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case purely from the noun phrase.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that results are ranked by relevance and include snippets, which adds useful context, but says nothing about pagination, default limits, permissions, or how the FTS5 scoring behaves.

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 sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose plus return shape are both front-loaded. It is compact and readable, though slightly terse for a tool with four parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described at length, and the schema fully covers the inputs. However, the description lacks any routing guidance against siblings like get_page or discover, leaving a gap in overall completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents query, limit, kind, and section filters in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: full-text search over 1C help using FTS5. It clearly describes the operation and its scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from retrieval siblings like get_page or discover.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_page, related, or discover. Usage is only implicitly inferable from the word 'search'; no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are given.

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