sc_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (status codes plus latency) but says nothing about authentication, redirect handling, concurrency, or per-endpoint failure behavior. Adequate disclosure of outputs, silent on operating conditions.

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 tight sentence with the action and the two return values front-loaded. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, stating that it returns status codes plus latency covers the main return-value gap. Deployment/auth context that would make it fully self-sufficient is absent, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both 'timeout' (seconds, default 5) and 'endpoints' (URL list) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the purpose but adds no format, batching, or default details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (check), resource (HTTP endpoints), and outputs (status codes plus latency), so the agent immediately knows what the tool does. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings, but the siblings (sc_deploy, sc_mail_*, sc_logs_analyze) occupy unrelated domains, so cross-confusion risk is low.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The health-check intent is only implied by the tool name and the endpoint wording. Nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to reading logs via sc_logs_analyze.

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