zyta_auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must alone disclose behavioral traits. It does state 'No muestra el token', which is a key safety disclosure. However, it omits details about the response format (e.g., boolean, object), error conditions (e.g., if no configuration exists), and whether the tool has side effects. Given the absence of annotations, the description is insufficiently transparent.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and a key behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Indica si') and contains no redundant words. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only tool but lacks completeness because there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the return value structure or possible states. For example, it does not mention what 'indica' produces (boolean? status object?). Without annotations or output schema, the description should be more thorough.

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Per rubric, 0 parameters have a baseline score of 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what the tool checks (token status, base URL) and what it does not reveal (token itself). No further clarification needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to indicate whether the MCP has a configured token and the base URL. The verb 'Indica' combined with the specific resource ('token configurado', 'URL base') makes the action unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zyta_login (which performs login) and zyta_whoami (which shows current user).

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it is a readiness check before other operations, there is no guidance on prerequisites, when-not to use, or comparison with zyta_login or zyta_whoami. The agent must infer usage context.

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