ztna_site_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates that, earning no credit. The description does bound the scope to connector health for a site, but says nothing about what health data is returned, whether it aggregates connectors, or whether a site without connectors returns empty versus error.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy in the body. The bracketed '[READ]' marker is redundant with the annotation and slightly crowds an otherwise lean line.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but with zero schema documentation the description should still clarify what a 'connector health' result contains and what the site_id should look like. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to call it blind on the only input it takes.

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 0% for the single required site_id, so the description must carry the burden — yet it only says 'one site' without indicating whether the identifier is a site ID, name, or region-scoped key, nor any example format. The only added meaning is that exactly one site is queried.

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?

A specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('connector health') scoped to 'one site' — an agent can tell this is a single-site health lookup and not a listing. It stops short of naming the sibling used instead (e.g. ztna_connectors or ztna_site), so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for one site' implies a single-site lookup requiring site_id, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as ztna_site or ztna_connectors. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool for a health check versus a general site fetch.

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