Test ServiceNow connection

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads exactly one sys_user record, and it explicitly states that auth and connectivity problems are returned structurally (ok:false) rather than as errors. This gives an agent accurate expectations about failure modes.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the error-handling caveat is placed second, which is natural and useful.

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 one-parameter tool with a readOnly annotation and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, behavioral scope, and error semantics. The only missing piece is explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% for the single optional parameter, so the schema already handles parameter documentation. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, though the schema pointing to servicenow_list_instances is helpful. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying configured credentials by reading one sys_user record and reporting ok/status/latency. This distinct focus on credential verification differentiates it from siblings like get_status and check_capabilities, and includes a specific resource and behavior.

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 clear context for when to use it ('verify that the configured credentials actually work'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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