local_ydb_check_prerequisites

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and open-world behavior. The description adds crucial context: with confirm=true it may install only curl/ruby (never Docker), and without confirm it returns a plan. This goes beyond annotations, though some details (e.g., return format) are implicit.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Description covers the two modes and key behavioral constraints (no Docker install). Lacks explicit return structure, but absence of output schema makes this acceptable. Adequate for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema's confirm description, but it clarifies the behavioral impact of confirm, which is partially covered in the schema.

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 checks target-host prerequisites for specific components (Docker, curl, ruby, rootPasswordFile) and distinguishes between plan-only and execution modes. This verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like auth_check or healthcheck.

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 implies usage for prerequisite checking but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use before bootstrap'). No exclusions or comparisons to other check tools are provided.

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