ym_check_auth

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explicitly states that secret values are NOT revealed and only variable presence is reported. It also discloses the exact JSON return shape, giving the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a key constraint and return format. No filler or redundancy; 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 parameterless read-only auth check, the description is fully complete: it states purpose, safety behavior, and return format. The output schema exists, so additional return-value documentation is unnecessary. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter meaning and focuses on behavior and output, which is appropriate for a parameterless check.

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 clearly states it checks whether required credentials are present in the environment, naming the specific resource (credentials) and the action (check). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling auth-check tools like wb_check_auth or ozon_check_auth, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for verifying credential presence, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the many sibling auth-check tools, nor does it mention typical pre-call usage. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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