List ServiceNow attachments

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds the useful distinction that only metadata is returned, not file content, and that scoping is optional. However, it discloses nothing about pagination, result size limits, or behavior when no scope is provided.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose immediately and adds the scoping detail without fluff. 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 read-only listing tool, the description, schema, and annotations together cover the essential who/what/where. It could be more explicit about whether table and sys_id are required together and whether listing without them returns all attachments, but the 'optionally scoped' phrasing and schema descriptions largely fill those gaps.

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?

All three parameters (table, sys_id, instance) have descriptive text in the schema, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. With high schema coverage, a 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('attachment metadata'), and clarifies the optional scoping by table + sys_id. This clearly differentiates it from sibling upload/delete tools without ambiguity.

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 context about optional scoping but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like servicenow_upload_attachment or servicenow_delete_attachment. No exclusions or conditional routing are mentioned.

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