Check ZSpace NAS connection

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it reports both connected and disconnected outcomes, states it 'never modifies NAS state,' and specifies the exact proxy endpoint. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey and gives an agent confidence about side effects and result semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then gives usage timing, return format, safety note, and sibling differentiation in a logical order. No sentence is wasted, and the sibling contrast is placed at the end where it is least likely to obscure the primary instruction.

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 connectivity probe with an output schema present, the description is complete. It gives the endpoint, success and failure response shapes, a no-mutation guarantee, and when to call it. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter surface with 100% coverage. The description confirms the fixed target (127.0.0.1:13579) and return shape, which is sufficient; there is no parameter meaning left to explain.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'check whether the ZSpace NAS is reachable through the local desktop client proxy' — and explicitly differentiates the tool from zspace_pool_info by clarifying this is a connectivity probe with a pool summary. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first to verify the proxy at 127.0.0.1:13579 is online before running other file operations.' It also names the alternative and the condition for choosing it: 'use pool_info when you only need capacity.' This fully covers usage context and exclusions.

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