local_ydb_graphshard_check

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about internal mechanism ('viewer/json capabilities and tabletinfo'), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions. Could be slightly improved by noting any permissions needed, but acceptable.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads purpose, mechanism, outputs, and usage context. No redundant wording; every part is valuable.

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 simple diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return values, and appropriate usage context. Given the minimal parameter set and clear annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 has 2 parameters (profile, configPath) with 100% description coverage. The description does not add any additional information about parameter usage or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a read-only GraphShard check using viewer/json and tabletinfo, and specifies outputs (graphShardExists, tablet ids, viewer status). It distinguishes from other tools by targeting GraphShard specifically, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools for comparison.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'use after tenant bootstrap when GraphShard support or tablet visibility is the specific question.' This clearly indicates when to use, but it does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools for different diagnostic needs.

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