explain_api

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose side effects, output format, or potential constraints (e.g., rate limits, caching). However, 'explain' is inherently safe and read-only. The list of topics adds context but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral details.

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 concise: one sentence plus a bulleted list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses efficient structure. Every part adds value.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and scope adequately. It could mention that the output is a textual explanation with examples, but the lack of output schema and low complexity make the current level 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?

The schema defines 'topic' briefly, but the description enriches it with a concrete list of acceptable topics. This helps the agent select appropriate values and understand the scope, adding value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('explain') and the resource ('ServiceNow API, class, or method'). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on explanation rather than analysis or generation, and the list of topics further clarifies scope.

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 implicitly defines when to use this tool (when needing an explanation of ServiceNow concepts). It provides a list of example topics, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no direct competitors exist among siblings.

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