recommend_instance_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains that props/events are enriched from live instance metadata when available, which tells the agent results may vary by instance. It does not cover auth needs, what happens when metadata is unavailable, or how recommendations are ranked.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the capability statement is front-loaded and the usage directive follows. Nothing is redundant, though it stops just short of the density a top score would require.

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 read-only, zero-required-param recommendation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and usage trigger adequately. The main gap is that result shape and fallback behavior when live metadata is missing are left unstated, but no output schema means return values need not be explained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, useCase, desiredEvents, and desiredProperties with examples and a default. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format beyond restating that props and events come from instance metadata, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (recommends) and resource (HDS platform components) and names its data sources: a curated registry plus live ServiceNow instance metadata for props and dispatched events. It is clearly distinct from the search/validate siblings, though it never explicitly names them.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before inventing a custom component when an existing platform component may already fit.' No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. evaluate_platform_component_fit), but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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