Get change request worker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only raises clauses (MissingParameterError, ParameterError), which is mild extra context but says nothing about return shape or why 22 parameters exist for a single-object fetch.

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 prose is short and front-loads the purpose in one line. Some boilerplate (:rtype: Response, duplicated :raises ParameterError:) earns little place, but overall it is tight.

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 22-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It never explains the sprawling parameter set, the meaning of 'worker', or how to use it versus the many sibling change-request tools.

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 description carries the full burden and documents only worker_sys_id. The other 21 parameters (state, task_sys_id, cmdb_ci_sys_id, sysparm_query, etc.) are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource: retrieve a change request worker. It distinguishes the resource from generic change-request reads, but it never clarifies what a 'worker' is or how it differs from siblings like servicenow_get_change_request or servicenow_get_change_request_tasks.

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 mention of alternatives, and no statement of context or prerequisites. An agent picking among the many get_change_request* siblings receives no routing help.

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