direct_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent that the tool runs a probe API call ('пробный clients.get'), checks the token/environment/points, and explicitly states that the token is not disclosed. This covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs to know.

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?

A single Russian sentence front-loads the purpose and then provides a compact enumeration of checks. Every clause carries information, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it defines what is tested and what is not exposed. It does not spell out the exact return format, but this is not critical given the enumerated status categories.

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 has zero parameters and the schema has full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The description's focus on connection state is consistent with requiring no input.

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 concrete action ('Проверить подключение' – check connection) and a specific resource (Yandex Direct), and enumerates the exact diagnostics performed: token presence, environment, API availability via a trial clients.get, and remaining points. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like direct_call or direct_report.

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 makes it clear this is a diagnostic/health-check tool by framing the action as checking connection and listing status checks. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this when verifying setup before direct_call' or name alternatives/exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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