local_ydb_tenant_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds sequencing context and clarifies that the check uses the YDB CLI to verify tenant metadata, but it does not disclose output, failure behavior, or other operational traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second gives the usage context. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given a simple read-only check with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It lacks any mention of return values or failure output, but for this low-complexity tool that gap is minor.

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 both parameters (profile and configPath) are fully documented in the input schema, including the fail-closed behavior for invalid config files. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('verify'), resource ('configured tenant path'), and method ('YDB CLI'), and positions it within the check sequence before node or GraphShard checks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling check tools such as nodes_check and graphshard_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 says when to use the tool: after bootstrap or restore, and before node or GraphShard checks. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it provides clear context but stops short of full routing guidance.

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