zcode_headless

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — only verified flags are emitted and unverified ones are reported as skipped, plus the model-provider prerequisite. However it omits that modes like 'build'/'edit'/'yolo' can mutate workspaces, whether the call blocks until completion, and any auth requirements beyond the provider note.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries information, though the flag-emission note sits mid-description rather than last.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description leaves most calling details (mode semantics, output format, timeout, resume/continue behavior) unexplained. The flag note is helpful but insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 11% across 9 parameters, so most parameters (mode, output, target, workspace, timeout_ms, continue, action) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a one-shot headless run via the zcode CLI. The phrase 'requiring no protocol' differentiates it from protocol-driven siblings such as zcode_protocol and zcode_chat, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides one useful prerequisite ('Needs a configured model provider') and implies one-shot/non-interactive use, but never states when to prefer this over zcode_chat or zcode_protocol, nor any exclusions. Usage context is only implied.

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