Get Instance Health & Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the concrete data sources (sys_properties, sys_cluster_state, sys_upgrade_history) and instance name/URL. This gives the agent insight into what will be read and returned, going beyond the annotation safety hints with non-obvious implementation details.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, uses a clear bulleted list for return content, and every line is informative without filler. It is concise yet complete for this tool's scope.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the four categories of returned data, making the expected output clear. The tool is a simple read-only health snapshot, and the description covers what, when, and how to use it, leaving no significant 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 coverage for the only parameter (response_format) is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add much. The description reinforces that no arguments are required and mentions output formats in the returns list, but this largely duplicates what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Return instance version, cluster nodes, recent upgrades, and key configuration properties,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates from siblings that handle records, incidents, or catalog items. It unambiguously identifies this as an instance-level health/info tool.

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 states 'No arguments required — returns a health snapshot of the connected ServiceNow instance,' which provides clear context for when to call it. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the scope is self-evident given the sibling tools.

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