execute_script

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context: it can run arbitrary server-side code, returns output, and requires WRITE_ENABLED. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the operational implications.

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 bit dense with multiple sentences, but each one serves a purpose: core function, supported APIs, output, use case, and requirement. It is front-loaded with the key action and remains readable.

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?

Covers the essential aspects: what it does, supported APIs, return value, use case, and configuration requirement. The note about WRITE_ENABLED and the supported API list make it fairly complete. Missing is a caution about side effects of arbitrary code execution, but annotations partially cover this via destructiveHint.

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%, with both 'script' and 'scope' fully described in the schema. The description mentions using gs.print()/gs.info() for output, but this is already present in the schema description. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics.

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 that the tool executes a server-side script on the ServiceNow instance, and lists supported APIs. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'execute_background_script', which appears to serve the same purpose.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool ('complex queries that cannot be expressed via REST') and states a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it with the sibling execute_background_script.

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