zalo_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool reports link status but does not specify the output format (e.g., boolean, string) or any side effects. While the tool is simple and non-destructive, more detail about the return value would improve transparency.

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, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains its purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by specifying the return type (e.g., 'returns true if linked') to make it fully complete. Still, it is sufficient for a diagnostic 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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable. According to the scoring guidelines, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4.

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 function: it reports whether Zalo is linked to Local MCP. It uses a specific verb ('reports') and resource ('Zalo linked to Local MCP'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zalo_connect (which establishes the connection) and zalo_disconnect (which removes it).

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to check the connection status of Zalo. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools. A higher score would require explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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