local_ydb_status_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: each component is isolated, failures produce a safe component-shaped fallback, and remaining checks continue. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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, efficiently packed with purpose, components, and failure behavior. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The description covers purpose, constituent checks, and failure isolation. Without an output schema, it only says 'each result' generically, but that is adequate for an aggregate diagnostic tool. Slightly more detail on return format could be added, but it's not essential.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters fully (profile and configPath), so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score 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 this is a read-only aggregate report for quick diagnosis, names the exact component checks it runs, and distinguishes it from the individual sibling health-check 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?

It conveys when to use it (quick diagnosis) and what it includes (five checks), implying it can replace running those checks individually. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions, but the context is clear.

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