List Records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the reading behavior and optional capabilities (filtering, field selection, pagination) but does not explicitly state read-only nature, default limits, or error behavior. It adds some context but lacks depth.

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 13-word sentence, front-loaded with 'List records'. Every word contributes meaning, and no extraneous or redundant information appears. It is an exemplar 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?

For a simple list tool with a comprehensive schema and an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It covers the core purpose and options. Missing explicit mention of defaults or edge cases is minor because the schema provides those details.

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% for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering, field selection, and pagination, which maps to query, fields, limit/offset, but adds no additional detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. It neither compensates nor detracts.

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 a specific verb 'List' and resource 'records from any ServiceNow table', with optional filtering, field selection, and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record (which implies single-record retrieval) and mutation tools like create/update/delete.

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: it lists records from any table with optional filtering, field selection, and pagination, which implies use for multi-record queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it over singular or aggregate tools.

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