YDB MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Explain a SQL query' implies a read-only analysis operation, it doesn't specify what the explanation output contains, whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, or what format the explanation takes. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration 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 tool with 2 parameters (0% documented), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'explain' means in this context, what format the explanation takes, or how this differs from similar tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about parameter semantics. It mentions 'a SQL query' which hints at the 'sql' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'params' represents or how it should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 the action ('Explain') and target ('a SQL query against YDB'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ydb_explain_query_with_params' which appears to serve a similar purpose with additional parameter support.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ydb_explain_query_with_params' and 'ydb_query' available, there's no indication of when this specific explain tool is appropriate versus when to use the parameterized version or execute queries directly.

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