local_ydb_healthcheck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral specifics: returns 'selfCheckResult, issue counts, issue types, capped raw output, and whether the database is healthy', and mentions using the 'official YDB CLI SelfCheck path'. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence directly states the purpose and key features, the second provides usage context. Every clause earns its place, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the main return fields (selfCheckResult, issue counts, etc.), which is sufficient for a monitoring tool. The 8 optional parameters are well-documented, and the tool's relationship to a sibling is clarified. No critical gaps remain.

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?

All 8 parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying constraints beyond the schema, e.g., that databasePath accepts only the configured tenant or root, and providing default values. This extra context justifies a 4.

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's purpose: performing a read-only healthcheck on a YDB tenant or root database. It specifies the verb ('monitoring healthcheck'), resource ('YDB database'), and scope ('configured tenant or root'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'local_ydb_status_report' by advising to use it after that tool for deeper diagnostics.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'use after local_ydb_status_report for database-level diagnostics'. This tells the agent when to apply this tool relative to a specific sibling. Although it doesn't enumerate all alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough for the agent to decide.

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