generate_csm_resolution_notes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond these: it reveals reliance on the Now Assist skill, the conditional fallback path, and that it returns raw case/work notes when the skill is unavailable. This surpasses the annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the main action, immediately explains the fallback, and closes with a relevant parity reference. There is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required, no output schema) and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers the core behavior: generating resolution notes via a skill, or returning case+work notes as a fallback. It does not specify the return format or error handling, but for a read-only, low-complexity tool this is acceptable.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema: 'case' is described as a CSM case number or sys_id, and 'table' as the case table with a default. The description adds no further detail about parameter usage or format, so it does not enhance the schema's meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 generates CSM resolution notes, using the Now Assist resolution-notes skill when available, with a fallback to returning the case and work notes. It also mentions parity with ServiceNow's feature, distinguishing it from generic summarization tools like summarize_record.

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 explains the fallback behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as summarize_record or get_case_sentiment. The intended use is implied by the tool name and the reference to ServiceNow parity, but no direct guidance or exclusion criteria is provided.

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