Mixed quality across 13 tools. Web-based tools (1-6) have proper schemas and annotations but lack parameter descriptions. Python toolkit tools (7-13) have descriptions in Russian, minimal schema detail, and no parameter type definitions. Tool 12 (run_command) is dangerously under-constrained with no validation guidance. Average tool description length ~80 chars (below 194 baseline). Only 6/13 tools have complete input schemas with typed parameters. No output schemas documented for any tool.

• Add English parameter descriptions to all Python toolkit tools. For code_grep, specify regex syntax (PCRE? Python re?), max pattern length, and example patterns. For read_file, clarify line numbering (0-indexed? 1-indexed?) and behavior at EOF.
• Document output schemas for all 13 tools. Example: booster_search_code should return {results: [{file: string, line: number, match: string}], total: number, limit: number}. This enables LLMs to chain tools correctly.
• Add safety constraints to run_command: document allowed commands (whitelist or deny patterns), timeout behavior, and require explicit confirmation for destructive commands (rm, dd, etc.). Implement command injection prevention.
• Enhance parameter descriptions with format guidance. E.g., booster_focus_symbol: 'symbol: Fully qualified name (e.g., MyClass.method_name) or file path. Use booster_search_code first if unsure.'
• Add error classification to tool descriptions. E.g., 'Returns 404 if file not found (retryable with different path) or 403 if permission denied (user-fixable). Timeout errors (>30s) are retryable.'