sn_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what is checked, which is useful, but it does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires elevated privileges, or what the response format looks like. It also doesn't mention any potential side effects from the health checks.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every phrase adds relevant detail without padding or repetition.

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 tool with one optional enumerated parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the health areas covered. It does not explain the return format or error behavior, but given the low complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 coverage is 100% with an enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping specific health categories ('version, cluster nodes, stuck jobs, semaphores, key stats') to the enum values, clarifying what each check encompasses beyond the schema's generic 'Which health check to run'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with the clear resource 'ServiceNow instance health' and enumerates concrete sub-areas (version, cluster nodes, stuck jobs, semaphores, key stats). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sn_query, sn_get, or sn_discover, which serve different purposes.

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 as a health-monitoring tool, and the enumerated checks give context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives (e.g., sn_get or sn_query), no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it.

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