Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return ... status' strongly implies a non-mutating inspection call, and enumerating the four status categories adds genuine context. However, it does not state whether the call is safe to poll, whether it fails or returns an error status when disconnected, or whether it has side effects on the connection.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word (the four status facets) conveys content an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does double duty and largely succeeds by naming the four categories of status returned. It stops short of describing the shape of those values or any error/offline state, which would fully close the gap for a diagnostics tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter commentary, which 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 verb 'Return' plus the resource 'status' is specific, and the four enumerated facets (connection, ownership, license, current-system) tell an agent exactly what information comes back. It implicitly distinguishes itself from zemax_multistart_status, which is scoped to multistart runs, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus zemax_info, zemax_connect, or zemax_multistart_status. A caller must infer that this is a pre-flight/health-check call. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are given.

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