zms_get_agent_connection_status_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns aggregated counts and percentages, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination limits, or any side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal extra behavioral context.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and return value. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word serves a purpose. No wasted text.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description provides a high-level summary of what is returned (counts and percentages). It is sufficiently complete for a simple statistics tool, though it could mention that it aggregates across agents.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its two optional parameters: 'search' and 'service'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high, and no extra value is added.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('aggregated connection status statistics for ZMS agents'), and the output ('connected/disconnected counts and percentages'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zms_get_agent_version_statistics by specifying the exact statistics being retrieved.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate. Among the many sibling tools, there is no differentiation in usage context.

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