list_records

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions optional filtering and pagination. It omits details like default limits (already in schema), permission requirements, return structure, and potential implications of querying any table. This is a significant gap for a data-access tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the key capability and optional features. No wasted words or redundant repetition of schema information.

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?

An output schema exists to document return values, and parameters are well-specified. However, the description does not address safety, scope boundaries, or relationship to sibling tools, making it minimally complete but lacking contextual depth for a broad list 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 descriptions cover all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'filtering, field selection, and pagination' loosely maps to query, fields, and limit/offset, but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 phrase 'List records from any ServiceNow table' clearly specifies the action and resource, while 'optional filtering, field selection, and pagination' outlines scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_record (single record) and list_ci (table-specific list).

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 implies usage for fetching multiple records across tables, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_ci or get_record. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage as implied rather than stated.

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