repack_async

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key behaviors: execution in a background job, immediate return of `{job_id, status:'running'}`, and result retrieval via `job_status` with `status='done'`. It does not cover error conditions or side effects, but the core async contract is clearly exposed.

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 compact sentences deliver the purpose, the async behavior, the immediate response shape, and the follow-up retrieval mechanism. Every sentence earns its place, and the key behavioral constraint is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter async tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation flow: input directory, target output, immediate job id, and polling via `job_status`. It omits failure modes and edge cases, but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds context by mapping `dir_path` to the unpacked directory and implying `output_path` is the target 1C file, but it does not specify path formats, constraints, or whether these should be file or directory paths.

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 specific operation ('сборка файла 1С из распакованного каталога') and the asynchronous execution model, distinguishing it from a synchronous repack tool. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling `repack` as the alternative, so it stops 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?

The description implies usage for asynchronous repack and explicitly instructs the agent to retrieve the result via `job_status`, which is helpful. It does not state when to use this async variant versus the synchronous `repack`, nor when not to use it, leaving the selection guidance implicit.

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