Build

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is a compilation step producing an installable package, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it omits details like where the package is written or what permissions are required.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the command name. It contains no redundant or wasted wording.

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 build tool with opaque parameters, no output schema, and several related SDK siblings, the description is too thin. It does not cover prerequisites, expected environment, parameter formats, or how the build artifact is handled, leaving important gaps for correct invocation.

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% for two parameters, and the description says nothing about what 'params' or 'params_json' should contain. With no parameter guidance anywhere, an agent cannot know how to supply build arguments or options.

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 ('Compile'), resource ('Fluent sources'), and output ('installable package'), and names the underlying command ('now-sdk build'). It clearly distinguishes the build step from sibling tools like servicenow_sdk_deploy and servicenow_sdk_transform.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deploy, init, or dependencies. It only states what the tool does, leaving all usage context to inference.

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