sn_resolve_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only' which confirms no side effects, and describes the parsing behavior without ambiguity. This fully discloses the tool's nature and output.

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 sentence, front-loading the key action ('Parse a ServiceNow URL') and listing output components succinctly. Every word serves a purpose with no 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?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies return components (table, sys_id, scope, suggested next tool). However, it does not mention return format, error handling, or invalid URL behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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 the single 'url' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra detail about URL format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the verb 'Parse' and the resource 'ServiceNow URL', and specifies the outputs: table, sys_id, scope, suggested next tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sn_query or sn_aggregate which are for querying or aggregation rather than URL parsing.

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?

While not explicitly stating when to use vs alternatives, the description mentions 'suggested next tool' implying guidance. The 'Read-only' tag indicates safe usage. The context is clear enough for a single-purpose tool, but lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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