Get ci lifecycle active actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what 'active' means, whether results are paginated or scoped by lease/state, or what the returned action records contain.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 read tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without the CI identifier syntax, the meaning of 'active', or any note on result shape. Given the opaque params wrapper, considerably more context was required.

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% and both parameters are opaque generic containers ('params' with additionalProperties:true and 'params_json' string defaulting to '{}'). The description only hints that a CI identifier is needed ('for the specified CI') without naming the field or its format, so it 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a list of active CI actions') scoped to a specified CI, which is more than a tautology of the title. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as servicenow_get_ci_lifecycle_status or servicenow_add_ci_lifecycle_action, leaving the agent to infer what 'active actions' excludes.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. It does not say when to reach for this versus get_ci_lifecycle_status or the check_ci_lifecycle_* validators, so usage must be guessed.

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