find

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: the index covers extension objects and attributes but excludes module code, and the first call in a session builds or loads the index from user settings while later calls do not touch 1C. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or how large result sets behave beyond the schema's limit.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and followed by output, index coverage, and caching behavior in that order. The long enumeration of artifact kinds is dense but earns its place by defining scope. Slight redundancy in the final sentence about first-call behavior versus repeated calls.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, what is excluded (module code), what is returned, and the session-level index caching model. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is rightly not expanded. Only the absence of explicit when-to-use routing against siblings leaves a gap.

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 are already documented, and the description correctly does not repeat them. It adds one piece of meaning not present in the schema: searching "и по обработчику" (by event handler), which is not among the kind values listed. That single addition keeps it at the baseline rather than above it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Поиск по индексу метаданных сеанса") and enumerates exactly which artifact classes are searchable (objects, attributes, dimensions, resources, tabular sections, enum values, forms, commands, templates, subscriptions, scheduled jobs, handlers). It also states the output fields (full name, synonym, types, extension), so an agent knows what it gets back. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it differs from (metadata, query, usages), which keeps it from 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: the tool is for locating metadata by name or synonym when the exact name is unknown. The description never says when to prefer this over siblings like metadata, query or usages, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing an open session. The refresh guidance lives in the schema, not the description.

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