create_script_include

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 7 sub-parameters (though nested under one parameter), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a script include is, when to use it, what permissions are needed, what the response contains, or how it differs from similar creation tools. The agent has insufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond the basic action.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, so it adds no semantic information beyond what's in the schema property names. However, with 1 parameter (a nested object with 7 sub-parameters), the baseline is 3 since the schema at least provides property names and types, though without 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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new script include in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_script_include' and 'delete_script_include' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what a script include is or its typical use cases, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when script includes are appropriate versus other ServiceNow scripting methods, or how it relates to siblings like 'create_workflow' or 'create_article'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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