configuration_name_version_from_subsystems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral detail: it reads the register via the list output command so hidden columns like 'Это основная конфигурация' are available. However, it does not state whether the operation has UI side effects, whether it is strictly read-only, or what happens with caching/refresh.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and result, the second explains the non-obvious implementation choice. No filler or 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?

The description covers the core read behavior and there is an output schema for return values, but it omits parameter semantics and usage context. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for session_id or refresh_cache. The agent must infer their roles from parameter names and defaults alone, which is insufficient when the description is the main source of 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Open ... and return') and resource ('Subsystem versions' information register, РегистрСведений.ВерсииПодсистем). It identifies the output as the main configuration name/version, but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the description's purpose statement.

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