sc_checkout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states only the basic action ('check out') but does not explain side effects such as file locking, writable state changes, or the impact on local files. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-modifying operation.

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 with no extraneous content. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, front-loading the key action and resource without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks crucial context about the source control workflow, such as locking behavior, prerequisites, or what 'check out' means in terms of local file state. The absence of annotations further reduces completeness.

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%, as the parameter 'paths' already has a description "File paths to check out". The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, format examples, or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('check out') and resource ('file(s)') while distinguishing from sibling tools like sc_checkin, sc_revert, and sc_diff. It clearly identifies the operation without ambiguity.

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 versus alternatives such as sc_checkin or sc_revert. The description lacks any context for the appropriate workflow or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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