List ServiceNow tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does add the specific source (sys_db_object) and the filtering behavior, but it does not disclose pagination, result shape, or the fact that unfiltered calls may return a large list. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the optional filtering detail. There is no filler or redundancy; 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 listing tool with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the absence of any return-shape or pagination notes, but the tool name and 'list' verb strongly imply a table list, so this is not a significant omission.

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% — both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds semantic context for 'filter' by explaining it matches a fragment in name or label, which goes slightly beyond the schema's bare description. The 'instance' parameter is covered fully by the schema, so no further description is needed.

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 a concrete resource ('tables from sys_db_object'), and clearly distinguishes the metadata-listing purpose from sibling record-manipulation tools like servicenow_query_table and servicenow_get_record. The optional filter by name or label is also explicit.

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 conveys a clear context: use this tool to discover available ServiceNow tables from the system metadata table. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the intended use obvious, and the mention of an optional filter implies its use for narrowing discovery.

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