fluent_sdk_query

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true`, and the description reinforces the read-only nature with "read-only" and adds useful context that the command runs via the CLI against the authenticated instance with "no browser." It also mentions that the feature is new in @servicenow/sdk 4.8, adding version awareness. However, it does not disclose potential prerequisites like needing the SDK installed, but this is beyond what annotations provide, so it adds solid value.

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 concise and front-loaded with the command and its core nature, then adds version and use-case context, and ends with a compact example. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, and the structure flows logically from what to how to when.

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 read-only query tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is well-rounded: it explains what the tool does, how it executes (CLI), when to use it, and provides an example. It does not need to detail return values because the tool is a straightforward query execution, and the annotations cover side-effect safety. This makes it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, providing baseline 3. The description goes beyond by including a concrete example (`{ table: "sys_user_role", query: "name=admin", fields: ["sys_id","name"], limit: 1 }`) that demonstrates how all parameters work together, making the semantics clearer without repetition.

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 executes a read-only Table REST API query via the ServiceNow SDK CLI, naming the exact command (`now-sdk query <table>`) and distinguishing it as a CLI-based operation with no browser. It also narrows the target use case to authoring Fluent code, listing specific purposes like resolving sys_ids and inspecting schemas, which differentiates it from generic query tools like `query_records` or `fluent_query`.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: "Ideal while authoring Fluent code" and enumerates specific scenarios (resolve sys_ids, inspect table schemas, check existing records, read choice values). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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