local_ydb_database_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by annotations. The description adds the specific return structure (command, stdout, stderr, ok flag) and tenant-path scoping, which is useful context, but does not describe error behavior, formatting, or timeout characteristics. With strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 return structure; the second gives usage guidance and names the sibling alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 status tool with strong annotation coverage (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description fully conveys what it returns and when to use it, including the sibling differentiation. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly enumerates the return fields (command, stdout, stderr, ok flag), compensating adequately.

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%, with both parameters (profile and configPath) documented in the schema. The description names the tenant path in its behavior but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Read-only YDB admin database status for the configured tenant path.' It specifies the scope (configured tenant path) and the return payload (command, stdout, stderr, ok flag), distinguishing this from sibling read tools like local_ydb_tenant_check and local_ydb_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?

Explicitly directs use 'for tenant state before bootstrap/restart troubleshooting' and names the alternative: 'use local_ydb_tenant_check for scheme reachability.' It gives clear usage context and an exclusion but doesn't enumerate the full set of when-not-to-use scenarios or enumerate all alternative read tools among the many siblings.

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