get_zen_info

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

Description clearly indicates a read-only operation retrieving configuration data. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately conveys non-destructive behavior, though lacks details on idempotency or auth requirements.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and directly states the purpose. No extraneous information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the returned information (binary path, version, environment variables, output file location). It is complete for intended use.

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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and description adds no param information. Baseline for 0 params is 4; no need for further semantic enhancement.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves configuration info of the current Zen instance, listing specific items (binary path, version, environment variables, output file location). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_zen_output or get_network_request.

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?

Description implies use when configuration info is needed, but does not provide explicit when-not or alternatives. Since it's a read-only getter, the context is clear but could mention no side effects.

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