local_ydb_check_prerequisites

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

Besides annotations (idempotent, not destructive), the description discloses key behaviors: unreachable SSH targets return 'unavailable' without false missing-tool claims, confirm=true may install only curl/ruby packages, and Docker is never started or installed. This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 purpose, and uses three sentences to convey purpose, failure behavior, and confirm modes. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 check tool with install potential, the description covers main scenario, edge case (unreachable host), plan vs execute modes, and explicit non-actions (no Docker installation). No output schema exists, but the return snapshot is described adequately as 'current snapshot' and 'refreshed post-install snapshot'.

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?

Input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add new syntax or format details but reinforces confirm's install effect. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema is self-sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('target-host prerequisites'), enumerating exact items (Docker CLI/daemon, curl, ruby, rootPasswordFile). This distinguishes it from sibling check tools like local_ydb_nodes_check or local_ydb_auth_check.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to assess target-host readiness) and explains the confirm flag's plan-vs-execute behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient in a set of prerequisite-focused tools.

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