local_ydb_nodes_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description redundantly states 'read-only' (already in annotations) but adds the mechanism detail (viewer/json nodelist) and emphasizes it checks registration specifically. With comprehensive annotations, a 3 is warranted — the description adds modest context without contradiction.

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. Front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance. Efficient and information-dense without padding.

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 read-only check tool with 0 required parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what it checks, when to use it, and ordering relative to tenant_check. No output schema exists, but the description frames the tool as a verification best-effort over viewer data, which is sufficient for a status-check tool in a larger check-family.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters (profile and configPath) with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Read-only check of dynamic node registration through viewer/json nodelist' — a specific verb (check), resource (dynamic node registration), and mechanism (viewer/json nodelist). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on node registration verification via the viewer API. However it doesn't explicitly contrast with closely related sibling tools like local_ydb_graphshard_check beyond naming tenant_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?

Excellent guidance: 'Use after starting, adding, or removing dynamic nodes' gives explicit when-to-use context, and 'use local_ydb_tenant_check first when tenant reachability is unknown' explicitly names an alternative and an ordering prerequisite. This is exactly the level of usage guidance that helps an agent select correctly.

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