ztds_info

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

No annotations are provided, but the tool takes zero parameters and the verb 'Retrieve' clearly marks it as a non-mutating read, so the behavioral risk surface is small. The description adds version context (RFC v1.0, IETF draft-02) but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the content is static/cached, or the form the content is returned in.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema or annotations, and nothing needs trimming.

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 should carry more of the return-value burden; it names the two content areas but not the format (text/markdown/JSON) or whether the response is static. For a zero-arg reference tool this is mostly adequate, but a sentence on return shape and any auth requirement would close the gap.

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 accepts no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-param tool applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics and instead spends its words on what the call returns.

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 (Retrieve) and a concrete resource (ZTDS open specification details plus enterprise upgrade guide), with version identifiers that pin down the content. It is clearly the informational/reference tool among operational siblings (sanitize, restore, audit, reset_session), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the lookup tool to consult for spec/upgrade reference material before operating on ZTDS. There is no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or how to proceed after retrieving the material.

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