fluent_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds specific behavioral context: it reports the version, indicates whether it meets the tracked version, and returns an upgrade hint when outdated. No contradiction with annotations, and the added detail is useful for understanding what the tool does beyond a simple read.

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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key behavior (upgrade hint) without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool does, what it checks, and what it returns. No additional context is needed.

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 input schema shows zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics because there are none.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and specifies the resource (installed @servicenow/sdk version) and its purpose (version compatibility check against NowAIKit's tracked version). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all about data operations or automation, not SDK version introspection.

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 implies when to use this tool: to check if the installed SDK meets the version NowAIKit tracks features against, and it mentions the upgrade hint for out-of-date versions. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but none exist among siblings, and the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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