szlcsc_healthcheck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a lightweight check that does not read price/stock details, which is helpful for safe usage. However, it does not disclose what exactly 'healthcheck' returns (e.g., success/failure, latency), whether it modifies any state, or what side effects may occur. For a read-only health probe, minimal transparency, but no contradictions.

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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence with high information density. It front-loads the purpose ('轻量检查') and includes what is excluded ('不读取价格库存详情'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool is a simple health check with one optional parameter and an output schema exists (which presumably defines the return format), the description covers the essential behavioral boundaries. However, it does not explain how the output schema relates to the check results, nor does it address any prerequisites (e.g., must call this before others). For a no-annotation simple tool, this is minimally complete.

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 0%, and the tool has only one parameter (query) with a default of 'STM32'. The description does not explain the meaning or purpose of the query parameter — e.g., whether it's used to test with a specific string or if it's irrelevant. Since the schema provides the name and default, but no description, the tool's doc adds zero semantic value beyond what the schema implicitly offers. Baseline 3 for low coverage is not met; however, the parameter is simple and self-explanatory for a healthcheck, so it is minimally adequate.

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 it is a lightweight health check for the SZLCSC search interface and local cache, and explicitly notes what it does NOT do — reading price/stock details. This verb+resource+scope distinction is specific and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that do involve searching, downloading, or library operations.

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 for verifying availability of search interface and cache, with no exclusions. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the similar szlcsc_cache_status (which likely focuses on cache alone) or szlcsc_search (which does actual searching). Without explicit when/why-not/alternatives, the agent may guess suboptimally.

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