Get change request nextstate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful failure behavior (MissingParameterError when the sys id is absent, ParameterError on bad params or JSON deserialization failures). It does not explain what a 'next state' response contains or whether it is computed or fetched.

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 one-line purpose is well front-loaded, but the docstring boilerplate (:param/:type/:return/:rtype/:raises) is verbose relative to the small amount of actual information conveyed, and it spends lines on type annotations that a machine-readable schema already implies.

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?

With 22 parameters, no required fields, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition should carry substantial context. Instead it documents one parameter and gives a vague return description ('parsed Pydantic model with information about the next state'), leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.

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 22 parameters, so the schema documents nothing. The description clarifies only change_request_sys_id ('Sys ID of the change request') and covers none of the other 21 parameters (worker_sys_id, cmdb_ci_sys_ids, sysparm_query, api_parameters, etc.), which is far below what a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (the next state of a change request), which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling reads like servicenow_get_change_request. However, 'next state' is left undefined — no state machine or transition context is given, so the agent cannot fully grasp what it retrieves.

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 conditions selecting this over servicenow_get_change_request, servicenow_update_change_request, or the approval/conflict siblings, and no prerequisites for obtaining a valid sys_id. The docstring covers only the mechanics of the call, not when it should be made.

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