run_discovery_scan

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

Description does not disclose side effects (e.g., CI creation or update), asynchronous nature, or permission requirements. Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-idempotent, but description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Trigger a ... scan'.

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 description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, the '[Write]' prefix adds minor clutter. Overall, it is efficient but lacks depth.

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?

No output schema is present, and the description does not explain return values or post-trigger behavior. For a tool that initiates a potentially impactful process, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, and descriptions are provided for both parameters. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'Trigger a ServiceNow Discovery scan' and the target resource 'network/infrastructure'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_vulnerabilities' and 'run_atf_test'.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Sibling tools like 'scan_vulnerabilities' or 'cmdb_find_duplicates' are not differentiated in terms of use case.

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