get_framework_guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose return content and default behavior ('When called without arguments, it defaults to create-custom-element guidance'), which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs. It never states that the tool is a non-mutating read of bundled guidance, but for a knowledge-retrieval tool this is minor.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the body is a long wall of prescriptive framework rules (className vs class, optionalDependencies 'instance' versioning, shim import paths) that largely restate what the tool returns rather than describing the tool. Several sentences could be folded into the returned content without loss to tool selection.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, and it does so explicitly by enumerating the bundled topics and the no-arg default. Combined with the two optional selector params documented at 100% coverage, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it explains the default when both optional params are omitted, and frames both params as retrieval selectors (direct topic vs. closest bundled topic). That default behavior is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 establishes a specific purpose: retrieving MANDATORY workflow guidance for ServiceNow Now/Next Experience UI Framework projects, and enumerates the bundled content (scaffold pattern, workflow contract, manifest rules, decision flow). It implicitly separates itself from siblings by naming get_component_scaffold as the source of the actual JSX scaffold, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with guidance-adjacent siblings like explain_now_ui_manifest or get_component_api.

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?

It is emphatic about compliance ('MUST use', 'MUST prefer', 'MUST NOT hand-write') and discloses the no-argument default of create-custom-element guidance, which tells the agent how the call behaves. However, it never says when to invoke this tool versus get_component_api, explain_now_ui_manifest, or evaluate_platform_component_fit; the usage context is only implied by the domain framing.

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