zipviz_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a lightweight read, but does not state read-only semantics, whether it hits the network, caching/rate behavior, or what 'verified' and 'trust status' concretely mean in the response.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage hint immediately following. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter lookup this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should explain what the check returns (e.g., a boolean vs. a trust score) and how it differs from zipviz_verify. Those gaps keep it at minimum-viable.

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?

There is a single 'domain' parameter with 100% schema description coverage (including an example, ticki.adkgo.viz), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Check') and resource (an agent's verified/trust status) on the ZipViz network. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling zipviz_verify or zipviz_explain_verification, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this trust-status check.

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?

'Use this for quick trust checks before communicating with an agent' gives a usage context, but offers no exclusions or alternatives despite three sibling tools (verify, explain_verification, lookup) covering adjacent ground. The agent must infer when status is preferred over verify.

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