Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• zona_pingB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains that this is only a short test/confirmation action and names the token and path checked, which gives useful context. It does not disclose whether a real notification is exposed to users or what response to expect, leaving minor ambiguity.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and includes no filler. Every phrase adds information about what the tool does and why the agent would call it.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two parameter ping tool, the description is close to sufficient and can succeed with reasonable inference. But with no output schema and no explanation of parameter semantics or success/error behavior, an agent may not know how to interpret the invocation results.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantic load, but it only says 'short test notification' and gives no explanation of `body` or `title`. The agent must infer the meaning of the two self documenting string parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('send ... test notification') and a clear purpose ('confirm the local token and /notify path work'). It implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling zona_notify (the real notification tool), though it doesn't name the alternative explicitly.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The purpose clause 'to confirm the local token and /notify path work' provides a concrete trigger for use. However, it does not state when NOT to use the tool or explicitly compare against zona_status/zona_notify, so the guidance is helpful but not explicit.

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

• zona_statusA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the surface description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful safety guarantee: 'Never returns the token,' which tells the agent that handling the sensitive credential data will not leak. It does not state what happens if the file is missing or whether the tool raises errors, but the explicit privacy behavior is a strong positive signal.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then adds the safety caveat. Every word contributes to actionable understanding.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter status check, the description covers the primary behavior and an important privacy boundary. It could mention the return value or what constitutes a failure, but since the tool is simple and the description states the exact check, the missing output details are a minor gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing about arguments that the agent could misunderstand.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a clear action ('Check') and a specific resource ('local Zona source-token file exists'), so an agent can understand what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the resource and action are specific enough to differentiate it from zona_ping and zona_notify.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the siblings. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent has to infer usage solely from the tool name and check-like phrasing.

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

• zona_notifyA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the payload is delivered externally to the owner's app and adds a practical security warning ('Do not put secrets in title, body, or data'), which meaningfully flags a transmission/exposure risk. However, it says nothing about failure behavior, delivery guarantees, the effect of the idempotency key, or what happens on invalid attachment paths.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Three sentences, all earning their place: the core action is front-loaded, the parameter constraints condense the schema into a readable line, and the secrets warning is a tight closing note. No redundancy with the input schema beyond the readable restatement of limits that serves comprehension.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The payload spec is fully covered for six parameters with two required, but the context is under-specified elsewhere: there is no output schema and no statement about the return value, error conditions, or whether the call is asynchronous. The description never explains what the idempotency key actually guarantees — a real gap for an agent deciding whether to retry a failed send.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does most of the job: it states the title/body character limits, enumerates the severity enum values, and adds non-schema information that attachment paths must be PNG/JPEG/WebP images and at most five. It falls slightly short by only naming 'category' and 'idempotency key' without explaining their purpose or behavior.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a precise verb-resource pair — 'Send an inbox notification to the owner's Zona app' — making the action, recipient, and delivery channel unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools zona_status and zona_ping, which are inherently read/check operations rather than mutations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Usage is implied rather than stated: the description tells the agent what the tool does, so the appropriate scenario (deliver a notification to the owner) can be inferred, but it never says explicitly when to choose this over siblings or what conditions would disqualify it. There is no when-not clause or explicit routing to zona_status/zona_ping.

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