local_ydb_auth_check

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

The description states it 'uses root credentials when rootPasswordFile is configured,' which is non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the conditional root-credential usage detail that the annotations don't convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states purpose and mechanism; the second gives the usage trigger. Every clause adds value — no filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 read-only audit tool with full annotation coverage (all safety hints declared) and 100% schema coverage, the description is essentially complete. No output schema exists, so return values aren't specified, but for an 'auth check' tool the result is self-evident (pass/fail status). The root-credential conditional behavior is the main nuance, and it's disclosed.

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% for the two parameters (profile and configPath), with clear descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, which is expected given full coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies 'Read-only auth audit' that checks 'anonymous viewer whoami status' and 'configured YDB CLI tenant access' — a specific verb (checks/audits) with clear resource (auth state) and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like local_ydb_tenant_check (tenant health) and local_ydb_permissions, making its niche clear.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use after auth hardening or password rotation to verify the expected posture,' giving a direct when-to-use trigger. Since no alternatives are needed (it's inherently post-verification), this counts as clear usage context. It implicitly excludes the preparation tools (prepare_auth_config, apply_auth_hardening, set_root_password) as setup steps rather than verification steps.

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