zia_get_activation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'current' and 'configuration activation status' context, which is slightly more specific but no additional behavioral details are provided. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's function with zero waste.

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, read-only status check with no output schema, the description is complete. It accurately tells the agent what the tool does, and there is no additional complexity that requires further elaboration.

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 there is nothing to explain beyond what the empty schema already implies. As per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is set for tools with 0 parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool gets the current ZIA configuration activation status, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the activation status, which is unique among the many zia_* tools.

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 implies usage (to check activation status) but provides no explicit context or alternatives. Since it is a simple status check, explicit when/when-not guidance is not necessary, but the lack of any mention of alternatives or conditions limits it to an implied usage level.

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