sx_health

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists outputs but doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any authentication requirements or side effects. The term 'health check' implies a diagnostic operation, but the absence of explicit transparency is a gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key outputs with no irrelevant words. It is perfectly concise and easy to parse.

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 health check tool, the description covers the core outputs but omits any mention of error conditions, whether it's safe to call repeatedly, or any operational context. Without annotations or an output schema, it could be more explicit about side effects and usage scenarios.

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 and the schema is empty (coverage 100%). Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the health check returns, which is beyond the empty schema.

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 performs a health check and enumerates the specific data returned (gateway address, read-only switch, auth readiness, missing items). It is distinct from sibling tools that handle forms, queries, or workflows, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives, leaving an agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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