Статус подключения к Директу

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds important behavioral context: it makes no network calls and never displays the token itself. It also explains where the token comes from and where saved data resides, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core status information, and then adds the safety guarantee and usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool, the description covers what the tool checks, what it will not do, and when to invoke it. The exact output format is not described, but the tool's purpose is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is complete, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly implies no external input is needed.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: it shows whether Yandex Direct is connected, with concrete details like token presence, source, expiry, and file location. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_login, finish_login, and direct API tools.

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 an explicit trigger condition: call this when Direct tools report that the connection is not configured. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it to login/logout alternatives, but the intended diagnostic use is still clear.

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