get_syntax

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: unavailable version constructs are flagged, a replacement recipe may be present, and the 'Availability' field corresponds to a compile error, e.g., a server method used from a client context. This is substantial and genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 two dense sentences that front-load the result shape, then provide usage guidance, a concrete example, and a compile-error nuance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Between the detailed schema, the output schema, and the description's explanation of when and why to call this tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. The old-configuration workflow, the replacement-recipe behavior, and the availability-as-compile-error nuance are all covered.

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 the baseline is 3. The input schema already documents the name, config, and detail parameters thoroughly, including nested-object member syntax and config disambiguation. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: return the full description of a 1C platform element, including signature, parameters, return type, availability, version, and an example. It is specific and informative, but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like search_syntax, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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 gives a clear usage rule: call this tool before using a function on an old configuration, because version-unavailable constructs are marked and a replacement recipe may be provided. It does not spell out when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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