local_ydb_pull_image

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description explains the conditional execution (plan vs. start) and that an already-present image returns a jobId. It adds context about background execution but does not detail whether the image is overwritten if already present, which is a minor gap.

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, front-loading the purpose and then elaborating on the two modes. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the output for both plan and execute modes. It could mention failure behavior (e.g., Docker pull errors), but the current content covers the primary use cases.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role in triggering execution and the output format (inspect/pull commands vs. jobId). This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 plans or starts a background Docker pull, distinguishing between the two modes based on the confirm parameter. It references the sibling tool local_ydb_pull_status for monitoring, differentiating it from other pull-related tools.

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 clear guidance on when to set confirm=true (to start the pull) versus false (for plan-only), and mentions the output as a jobId for local_ydb_pull_status. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like local_ydb_list_versions, though the context makes the usage clear.

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