rag_session_autoconfigure

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the internal read sources, matching logic, dumping requirements (direct Designer connection, web URL limitations), credential handling, and cleanup behaviors (temporary infobase deletion, generated source removal with override option). This gives the agent a thorough understanding of side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Despite being long, every sentence earns its place. It is structured logically: purpose, process, conditional dumping, connection requirements, user credentials, and cleanup defaults. The critical constraints (web URLs cannot be dumped) are front-loaded within the flow. No filler or redundancy; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 16 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what data it reads, when it dumps, connection modes, credential overrides, and cleanup behavior. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return-value details are not required. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and anticipate side effects.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of several key parameters: dump_if_missing, dump_connection_value, file_infobase_path, cf_files/cfe_files, dump_username/dump_password, cleanup_generated_sources, and dump_root implicitly. It does not detail session_id, snapshot_name, build_index, sync_sources, dump_all_extensions, dump_connection_mode, or cleanup_tmp_infobases, but these are fairly self-explanatory from their names. The description adds meaningful context for the complex decision-driving 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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Auto-configure the session RAG snapshot from the live 1C configuration and installed extensions.' It then details the process (reads from ВерсииПодсистем and ВерсииРасширений, matches sources, creates/binds snapshot). This unambiguously differentiates it from siblings like rag_snapshot_create (manual creation) and rag_sources_list (listing).

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?

Provides clear conditional guidance: when no suitable source exists and dump_if_missing=true, it can create sources via dumping, with specific instructions for web sessions and direct connections. It also explains when to pass dump_username/password. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., rag_snapshot_create) or state 'use this instead of X', so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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