sdk_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds operational behavior beyond that: it explains the two flags, the optional command parameter, and the lack of authentication/project requirements. This gives the agent a solid understanding of what to 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then concise flag guidance and key constraints. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

For a simple 2-parameter info tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, how to invoke it, valid flags, and prerequisites (none). It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving examples (-v, -h, command: 'build') and clarifying that command is only used with -h, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 retrieves Fluent SDK version or help information, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Fluent (ServiceNow SDK)'). It distinguishes itself from siblings that perform build/deploy/init operations by focusing on informational use cases.

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 explicit guidance for flag usage (-v for version, -h for help) and notes it does not require authentication or a project directory, which is clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings, but the unique purpose implicitly guides selection.

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