open_external_processor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it details the exact UI/dialog driving mechanism (main menu -> Файл -> Открыть, GTK chooser, Ctrl+L, Unicode-safe typing via xtest_type_unicode) and the Xvfb/window-manager prerequisite. It stops short of describing failure modes or timing/race behavior beyond settle_sec.

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 action and resource, and the dense parentheticals all carry substantive detail rather than filler. It is verbose and the Cyrillic/step-name asides add length, but almost every clause earns its place.

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 complex UI-driving tool with 6 params, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the mechanism, prerequisites, verification option, and the return shape. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be re-explained, and the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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 adds meaning for path (Cyrillic-safe typing), display (must be an Xvfb display with WM), and expect_caption (verifies the form opened), but leaves main_menu_x, main_menu_y, and settle_sec unexplained despite being tunable coordinates/timing.

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: opening an external data processor/report (.epf/.erf) in the running client via the native 1C mechanism. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_report by stressing 'EXTERNAL' and 'NO external input component, NO config object', so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 gives clear usage context by mapping the Gherkin step «Я открываю внешнюю обработку или отчет '<path>'» to this tool and stating a prerequisite (Xvfb display + window manager). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for related tasks (e.g. run_report for internal reports) or state when NOT to use it.

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