Combo suite scan

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that combo_sys_id is required and that a MissingParameterError is raised, but says nothing about whether the scan is asynchronous/long-running, what permissions it needs, or how to track progress afterward.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and the return-type note is useful, but the Sphinx :param/:type/:rtype boilerplate restates the first sentence and adds little. It is short, yet a meaningful fraction of it is re-documentation rather than new information.

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 43-parameter, zero-required initiator that returns no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits the async/progress model (a servicenow_progress/servicenow_instance_scan_progress sibling exists), parameter relevance, and any auth requirements. An agent cannot confidently call this beyond supplying combo_sys_id.

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 0% across 43 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and documents only combo_sys_id. The other 42 parameters (including suite_sys_id, scan_type, credential_sys_id, etc.) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to know which are relevant to this specific call.

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 and resource ('Initiate a suite scan for a combo') and identifies the driving parameter (combo_sys_id), making the core action clear. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as servicenow_suite_scan or servicenow_full_scan, so the agent must infer why a 'combo' scan differs from a plain suite scan.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling scan tools it competes with (suite_scan, point_scan, full_scan). The only conditional statement is the :raises clause, which is an error path rather than routing advice.

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