zerodom_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about what the tool reports, including connection state, session status, active tab, and log tail, and it frames the behavior as a non-mutating diagnostic. It could go further by explicitly stating that it makes no changes, but the detail provided is strong.

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 a single focused sentence with the core purpose front-loaded after 'Diagnose the current connection'. The trailing clause adds valuable rationale about replacing manual probing and log-tailing, without wasting words.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is diagnosed, what sub-aspects are included, and why this tool exists as a convenience. No additional context is necessary.

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 already reflects this with an empty properties object. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on observable behavior rather than hypothetical parameters.

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 begins with a specific verb, 'Diagnose', and names the resource ('the current connection') plus four concrete diagnostic aspects: relay reachability, browser session attachment, active tab, and the relay's log tail. This clearly sets it apart from sibling action-oriented tools like zerodom_press_key or zerodom_read_page.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: whenever one needs a single-call status overview instead of manual WebSocket-probing and log-tailing. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but it communicates the intended diagnostic scenario well.

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