local_ydb_tenant_check

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

The description states it is 'read-only,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them. It adds the context that it uses the YDB CLI and checks reachability. However, it doesn't describe what happens on failure, exit behavior, or what output is produced, though the annotations already cover the non-destructive nature.

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, no wasted words. Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and provides operational context in the second. 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?

For a simple verification tool with 100% schema coverage, no required params, and comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is largely complete. It explains what it checks, when to run it, and its role in the workflow. It could optionally mention failure semantics or return format, but the tool is simple enough that this isn't a critical gap given no output schema exists.

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%, with both parameters (profile and configPath) documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline rule with high coverage, a 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 is specific: 'Read-only check that uses the YDB CLI to verify the configured tenant path is reachable.' It names the verb ('check'), the tool used (YDB CLI), the specific resource (tenant path), and the outcome (reachable). It distinguishes from siblings like local_ydb_nodes_check and local_ydb_graphshard_check by focusing on tenant path reachability.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after bootstrap or restore to confirm tenant metadata before node or GraphShard checks.' This establishes a clear sequencing context and position within the operational workflow, distinguishing it from related sibling checks on the same stack.

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