local_ydb_nodes_check

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.) already declare the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds context that it checks through 'viewer/json nodelist,' which is not in annotations. However, it does not elaborate on additional behaviors like rate limits or error conditions. With annotations present, the description does not need to repeat them, but it adds some value.

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, each packed with useful information without redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool is a simple read-only check with two well-documented parameters and good annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the purpose, when to use, and hints at integration with sibling tools. Missing details like output format are acceptable since no output schema is present, but the behavior is straightforward.

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 schema documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a 'Read-only check of dynamic node registration through viewer/json nodelist.' The verb 'check' and resource 'dynamic node registration' are specific, and the context ('after starting, adding, or removing dynamic nodes') further clarifies the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools by guiding usage relative to local_ydb_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?

The description explicitly advises when to use the tool ('Use after starting, adding, or removing dynamic nodes') and when not to use it, recommending an alternative ('use local_ydb_tenant_check first when tenant reachability is unknown'). This provides clear usage boundaries and decision support.

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