get_case_sentiment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds behavioral detail: it attempts to use the Now Assist sentiment skill if available, otherwise falls back to returning the case and customer comments. This conditional behavior and fallback is not covered by the annotations, providing useful transparency about what the agent can expect.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and fallback, then adds a concise reference to parity. 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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent receives. It mentions returning the case and customer comments, but does not clarify the exact output format when the skill is available (e.g., a sentiment score vs. comments). Given the fallback, the behavior is partially described, but not fully complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters (case and table), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the CSM case but does not add much beyond the schema regarding parameter semantics; it doesn't explain the table parameter or any format details.

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 assesses customer sentiment on a CSM case, using the Now Assist sentiment skill when available, with a fallback to returning case and comments. It specifies the resource (CSM case) and the action (assess sentiment), and the parity with ServiceNow CSM 'Sentiment Analysis' distinguishes it from other case retrieval tools like get_csm_case.

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 gives clear context (assessing sentiment on a CSM case) but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool versus other case-related tools. It implies usage for sentiment analysis but lacks explicit 'when to use / when not to use' guidance found in stronger definitions.

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