zcode_checkVerify backend connectivity for coding agent: checks binary path, stored credentials, and available models after booting the app-server. Run this first when zcode_run fails.
Report whether the zcode agent backend is reachable: binary path, stored credentials, available models after booting the app-server. Run this first when zcode_run fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool checks reachability and lists components, but it does not disclose potential side effects like booting the app-server (implied by 'after booting the app-server') or whether the operation is read-only. It also doesn't clarify the output format or error behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.
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?
Two sentences, tightly packed. The primary purpose and the key usage trigger are front-loaded, and every word adds value. No filler or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and provides a usage trigger. It hints at the output content (binary path, credentials, models) but stops short of specifying the exact return shape. For a diagnostic tool, this is mostly complete, but a note on whether it starts the app-server or requires prerequisites would push it higher.
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 coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. It doesn't add misleading information, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and a clear resource 'zcode agent backend reachability', enumerating what is checked (binary path, stored credentials, available models). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as a diagnostic for zcode_run failures, so an agent can tell it apart.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Run this first when zcode_run fails.' This is a concrete trigger condition. It doesn't mention when not to use it or contrast with zcode_sessions, but the given condition is actionable and sufficient for basic routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.