List connection profiles

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that no mutation occurs, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: passwords are explicitly never included, a read-only flag is returned, and credential completeness is reported. This valuable detail goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 the primary purpose front-loaded and a security-relevant note appended without excess. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetitive or boilerplate language.

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 listing tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description names all meaningful output fields and explicitly covers the password-exclusion guarantee. It is nearly complete, though a note about the return container or pagination would fully remove ambiguity for agents expecting an array shape.

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 only parameter, instance, is fully documented in the schema with its default behavior and a reference to this tool. The description itself does not add further parameter-level guidance, so the schema carries the burden and 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 ('List') and a clear resource ('configured ServiceNow connection profiles (instances)') and enumerates the returned fields: name, host, user, read-only flag, and credential completeness. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the inline-invocation siblings that check credentials or 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 description implies this is the tool to inspect available connection profiles, and the parameter schema notes the active-profile default. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for calling it.

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