audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool inspects posture and trail, and warns about performance implications of wide windows. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies data, though 'inspect' implies read-only.

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?

Description is well-structured with a brief intro, an important warning, and a clear Args list. It is informative but not overly verbose. Could be slightly more concise by removing redundant 'required for' phrasing, but overall effective.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, 5 actions), the description covers all necessary usage and constraints. An output schema exists (not shown) which would further help, but the description itself is complete enough for an agent to understand behavior and invocation.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 8 parameters including the allowed action values, required fields for each action, and constraints like 1..50 for fields_csv and 32-char sys_id. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Inspect ServiceNow audit posture (table/field config) and audit trail.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like query (which retrieves records) and record_read (reads specific records).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and when to be cautious: warns about sys_audit table size, default 90-day window, and advises to override window_days or since only when necessary. Also implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on audit trail vs general querying.

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