sn_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the mode-switching model but says nothing about pagination, default limit of 100, or the effect of display_value — all behaviors an agent would want disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the action taxonomy, then a consolidation rationale. Nothing is redundant and the final sentence earns its place by telling the agent this replaces per-table tools.

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?

An output schema means return values needn't be explained, but a nine-parameter generic read tool needs pagination semantics (limit/offset), field selection, ordering and display_value called out. With 0% schema coverage and no such guidance, the description is too thin for the tool's surface area.

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 0% across nine parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only explains the three action enum values and gestures at query ("encoded query") and sys_id. limit, offset, fields, order_by, table and display_value are left entirely undocumented anywhere.

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+resource ("Read ServiceNow records") and enumerates the three action modes with concrete meaning for each. It doesn't differentiate against the closest sibling, sn_aggregate, which plausibly overlaps on the count case, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 in-tool selection guidance — query to list, get for one record by sys_id, count for the total — which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here. It stops short of saying when to prefer sn_aggregate or sn_write, and offers no exclusions.

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