fluent_explain

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact command ('npx @servicenow/sdk explain <topic>'), emphasizing 'always current API signatures, not training-data guesses', and describing the response as explanations of Fluent APIs, types, and patterns—this goes beyond what annotations state.

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 front-loaded with the command and purpose, then explains the output, then lists supported topics. While the topic list is long, it is structured as a single sentence and serves a practical purpose (enumerating valid inputs). No redundant words, though the list could arguably be shortened without losing intent.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and examples. It states what the tool returns ('explanations of Fluent APIs, types, patterns, and best practices') but does not specify the response format (e.g., plain text, structured JSON). This is a minor gap, but the description is otherwise complete enough for correct selection and 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?

The schema already documents the 'topic' parameter with examples, and schema coverage is 100%. The description enriches this with a much longer list of acceptable topics (GlideQuery, table API, scoped app, etc.) and clarifies the scope (Fluent APIs, types, patterns, best practices), adding meaning beyond the schema's brief description.

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 runs `npx @servicenow/sdk explain <topic>` to provide live SDK documentation, with a specific verb ('explain') and resource (SDK topics). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Fluent SDK topics and the explain command, not generic documentation.

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 conveys when to use it (when live API signatures or explanations of Fluent APIs, types, patterns, and best practices are needed) and lists many valid topics. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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