zcode_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses 'Read-only; starts no turn' — a genuine trait an agent cannot get from the schema, and important since it clarifies this does not inject into the conversation. However, it says nothing about the behavior of the other five actions (e.g., what doctor diagnoses, whether sessions/runs pagination or scoping costs anything).

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 and zero filler. The trailing probe note is somewhat tacked on but earns its place as the only action-level guidance.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the load — yet it documents one of six action modes and none of the return content for the others. For a multi-mode diagnostic tool, an agent cannot tell what doctor, runtimes, sessions, or runs yield or when to select them.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description explains the meaning of the 'probe' action only, adding marginal value over the self-describing const values; the remaining actions (runtimes, workspace, sessions, doctor, runs) and the shared 'workspace'/'limit' fields get no explanation in either place.

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: 'Report the state of this MCP server and of ZCode itself', which is clearly a status/diagnostic tool. It does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings like zcode_usage or zcode_protocol, which also surface server/runtime information, so an agent still has to infer routing.

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 only routing guidance is that '"probe" is the diagnostic entry point', which covers one of the six action variants (runtimes, workspace, sessions, probe, doctor, runs). No when-to-use vs alternatives, no when-not-to-use, no mention of when doctor vs probe vs runtimes should be chosen.

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