execute_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses important traits: the script runs inside a Scripted REST API resource, must use response.setBody for returns, and auto-deploys/cleans up. However, it doesn't mention execution limits, error handling, or permission requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: purpose, execution context, and lifecycle behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with no output schema. The description explains how to return data and lists available APIs, but omits potential side effects, error handling, and execution constraints. This is a useful but incomplete picture for a script execution tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds context about available APIs and response handling, but it doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 'Run server-side JavaScript on the ServiceNow PDI' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools (query_table, get_record, etc.) which handle data operations, whereas this tool executes arbitrary server-side code.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for executing server-side JavaScript with access to GlideRecord, gs, and other APIs. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context implies it is for custom scripting beyond simple CRUD operations.

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