Get ServiceNow connection status

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: explicitly stating that the password is never revealed. It also clarifies the scope of output (configuration and credential completeness, not secrets), which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads what is shown; the second preempts a likely security concern. Every word 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 read-only status tool with an output schema present and a single optional parameter documented in the schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and security context. It lacks nothing critical for an agent to use the tool correctly, though a touch more detail about how the optional instance parameter affects results could push it higher.

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% for the single optional parameter, with the schema already explaining that 'instance' selects a connection profile. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates the exact resource and fields (configured instance, user, auth mode, access policy, credential completeness), making it unmistakably distinct from siblings like servicenow_query_table and servicenow_check_capabilities.

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 purpose implies when to use it (e.g., before other ServiceNow operations, to verify connection configuration), but it offers no explicit guidance about situations where a sibling would be better, nor does it name alternatives. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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