Check ZCode Bridge setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares the read-only nature, explicitly states it does not start a ZCode session, and discloses that app-server model availability and real permission approval remain unverified until a task runs. It omits any note on permissions or runtime cost, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the check scope, followed by the scope exclusion and the verification caveat. Each sentence adds distinct information with no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a no-param read-only diagnostic, the description covers what is checked, what is deliberately not done, and the limits of the results. Only the tie-break against similar diagnostic siblings like zcode_status is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; there is nothing parameter-level for the description to add. The 100% schema coverage is trivially satisfied by an empty object.

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 (run read-only checks) plus a concrete resource scope: Bridge prerequisites, ZCode runtime/provider config, execution mode, task storage, and Desktop task-index availability. It explicitly negates the adjacent session-starting behavior, distinguishing it from siblings like zcode_task.

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?

Implies pre-flight/diagnostic usage by enumerating prerequisite checks and excluding session start, but never names an alternative (e.g., when to prefer zcode_status) or states the conditions under which this tool should be chosen. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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