_diag_probe_table

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds that table names are validated and dangerous query patterns are blocked, which provides extra behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise with a clear purpose, safety note, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. A few words could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 3 parameters, a single required param, no nested objects, and an output schema (not needing return value explanation), the description covers purpose, usage context, safety, and parameter details adequately for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in JSON schema), but the description explains each parameter: table (ServiceNow table to probe), query (optional encoded query filter), limit (max records, default 3). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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?

Clearly states it is a temporary diagnostic tool to probe any ServiceNow table to check access. The description includes the verb 'probe', the resource 'table', and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on CI and discovery operations.

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?

Explicitly states it is for troubleshooting only and mentions safety measures (validated table names, blocked dangerous patterns). Does not specify alternatives or when not to use, but the context implies it is for access checks.

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