zmp_get_login_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' implies a read, but the description never states that it is non-mutating, whether it performs network I/O, whether it can trigger a refresh, or what happens when the token is invalid or expired.

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 well-formed sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted in other dimensions.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what 'status' actually returns (e.g., logged-in boolean, token validity, expiry). Without that, an agent cannot reliably interpret the result of a status probe or know whether a follow-up login step is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (projectDir as an absolute path containing .env, token as an optional explicit ZMP_TOKEN). The description only restates 'project directory or token' and adds no precedence rules for when both are supplied.

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 and resource ('Check authentication status with Zalo Mini App Platform'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related zmp_wait_for_login sibling, which an agent would need to tell apart when deciding whether to poll or check once.

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 phrasing 'for a given project directory or token' hints at scope but never says when to call this versus zmp_wait_for_login, zmp_request_login_qr, or zmp_start_oauth_callback. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sequencing guidance are given for a tool sitting in a dense login-flow cluster.

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