Яндекс: состояние подключения

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: 'Секреты не показывает' guarantees no secret leakage, and it explains the causal link that insufficient permission groups cause tools to be hidden — context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the returned-information list is front-loaded before the secrets caveat. Every clause conveys distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating what the report contains. The only gap is that it never states the authentication prerequisite implied by the yandex_login sibling or whether an unauthenticated call is valid.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 title ('Яндекс: состояние подключения') plus the description together state a clear resource and scope: it reports which services are connected, which settings are missing, which permission groups are on, and which tools are consequently hidden. The verb is implicit (a diagnostic read), and it does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling yandex_login, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus yandex_login, nor any prerequisite (e.g. must be authenticated first). Usage is only inferable from the content list, which is the 'no guidance' end of the scale.

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