Get devops code schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what the returned schema object contains, what form the resource identifier takes, or how failures manifest.

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 with no waste, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is no second sentence doing the necessary work.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no usage guidance, the definition is too thin for a tool whose result shape is its entire purpose. An agent cannot predict what it will receive or how to supply the required resource identifier.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description hints that 'resource' names a code resource but gives no format, expected values, or scope, and the optional 'toolId' parameter is never mentioned at all. With low coverage the description was required to compensate and does not.

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 states a specific verb and object ('Returns the schema object'), which is clearer than a tautology, but 'code resource' is left undefined and the description never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like servicenow_get_devops_orchestration_schema and servicenow_get_devops_plan_schema. An agent cannot tell from the text which schema tool to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what preconditions apply, or which sibling to use instead when a different schema is needed. The agent is left to infer everything 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.