Get Table Schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clarifies the read-only nature implicitly via 'Get' and explains the result semantics (field definitions), but it does not disclose any potential side effects, permission requirements, or error behaviors. Given the output schema exists, some burden is reduced, but the lack of explicit safety information makes this a minimum viable score.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with a small parameter set, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description fully answers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional context is needed for a tool of this simplicity.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only confirming that the table is a ServiceNow table and that the result is field definitions. This matches the baseline score of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('data dictionary (field definitions) for a ServiceNow table'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on records, CIs, or update sets. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving schema metadata, not data. The sibling tools (list_records, get_record, etc.) are obviously for record-level operations, so a user would naturally choose this when needing field definitions. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, stopping short of a 5.

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