Статус подключения к Метрике

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

The description transparently discloses that the tool does not send anything over the network and does not expose the token itself, effectively communicating its read-only and privacy-preserving nature. This aligns with the annotations and gives additional context beyond basic metadata.

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 concise—two sentences—and efficiently covers the tool's purpose, the information it provides, its side effects, and when to use it. There is no unnecessary verbosity; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what the tool reports (connection status, token source, expiry, file location) and when to invoke it. It also mentions the tool's non-destructive and non-network nature, providing enough context for a user to decide whether to call it.

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, so no parameter descriptions are needed. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema reflects this. The description is complete in this regard.

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 tool's purpose: to show whether Yandex Metrika is connected, including token presence, source, expiry, and file location. It also provides a condition for when to call it (if Metrika tools report connection not configured). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Вызовите это, если инструменты Метрики отвечают, что подключение не настроено.' It also mentions that it does not send anything to the network and does not reveal the token, providing clear behavior expectations for users.

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