Zona MCP status

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.