Suite scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: the exception types raised (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and the declared return type. It does not, however, say what a scan actually does (async? long-running? does it require a progress_id poll?) — although the repeated failure to mark any parameter required sits in tension with the 'raises MissingParameterError' claim.

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 front-loaded and clear, but the Sphinx-style :param:/:return:/:raises: block is boilerplate that partly restates the opening sentence. It is appropriately sized for a docstring, but not efficiently structured for tool selection.

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, zero-coverage tool with no output schema, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine which of the many optional fields matter for a suite scan versus which are vestigial, nor map the described 'sys_ids' onto the actual schema.

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 and there is no output schema, so the description must carry the load — and it documents only three fields. Worse, it references a parameter named 'sys_ids' that does not exist in the schema (the schema has 'app_scope_sys_ids'), creating ambiguity about which field to populate. Forty parameters remain completely undocumented.

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: 'Initiate a suite scan based on the provided suite_sys_id and sys_ids.' An agent knows what the tool does. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like servicenow_combo_suite_scan, servicenow_full_scan, or servicenow_point_scan, so the boundary between scan flavors is left implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no named alternatives. With combo_suite_scan, full_scan, point_scan, and run_test_suite all in the sibling list, the agent gets no help choosing among them.

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