local_ydb_storage_leftovers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description reinforces and extends this by revealing the scan mechanism ('scans Docker volume names plus profile.storageSearchPaths') and the candidate-only semantics of results. This goes beyond what annotations and schema state.

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 with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, the scan mechanism and safety guarantee are in the second sentence, and the usage recommendation closes it out. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents both parameters. The description covers scope, mechanism, and sibling-relationship. The only gap is the lack of return shape detail (no output schema exists), though 'candidates' and 'decide exact paths or volumes' strongly imply a listing. Minor, not serious.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds one useful link — that the profile config field storageSearchPaths determines scan scope — but provides no additional format or syntax details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 names a specific verb ('search') and a precise resource ('candidate leftover local-ydb Docker volumes, dumps, and PDisk/data paths'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling local_ydb_cleanup_storage by positioning itself as the read-only precursor. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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 states when to use this tool: 'use before local_ydb_cleanup_storage to decide exact paths or volumes to remove.' It names the alternative tool and the sequencing condition that selects this one. No inference is required.

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