fluent_validate

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds behavioral detail: it runs an external npx command and requires an environment variable. This gives the agent actionable expectations about side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the command and requirement are stated efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, command, and a necessary prerequisite. It doesn't describe return values or error scenarios, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the existing annotations.

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 single parameter 'directory' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds nothing beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 validates a ServiceNow fluent/now-sdk project, using the specific verb 'Validate' and naming the resource. It also gives the exact command run, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fluent_build 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 (validation of fluent/now-sdk projects) and a key prerequisite (FLUENT_ENABLED=true). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is distinct enough that no exclusions are needed.

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