fluent_build

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

The description discloses the actual command executed (`npx @servicenow/sdk build`) and the required environment prerequisites. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnly and openWorld hints. No contradiction with annotations is apparent, as the build likely does not mutate the ServiceNow instance.

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 highly concise, containing two sentences that front-load the purpose and command. Every element adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 build tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose, command, and prerequisites. A minor gap is the lack of mention of typical build results or side effects, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With a single optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'directory' parameter. The description does not need to add further parameter details, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Build a ServiceNow fluent/now-sdk project' and specifies the exact command executed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fluent_validate or fluent_init, which have 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 provides essential usage context by listing required environment variables (FLUENT_ENABLED and WRITE_ENABLED). It implies when the tool should be used (building a project) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. However, the specificity of the build command makes the usage context clear.

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