List Scoped Applications & Plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return fields (name, scope, version, vendor, status) and providing example usage. No contradictions with 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?

The description is well-structured with clearly labeled sections (Intro, Args, Returns, Examples). Every sentence contributes meaningful information: the purpose, parameter usage, return fields, and practical examples. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 list tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is comprehensive. It explains the return fields, provides examples for key use cases, and clarifies parameter behavior. The absence of an output schema makes the 'Returns' line essential, and it is included. Overall, the description gives a complete picture of the tool's functionality.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds value over the schema by presenting parameters in a practical way, such as grouping limit/offset as 'Pagination' and showing concrete search examples like 'search="ITSM"'. However, it does not fully elaborate on all parameter nuances beyond what the schema already provides, hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'List installed ServiceNow scoped applications and active plugins.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like servicenow_list_incidents or servicenow_list_users. The title reinforces the scope ('Scoped Applications & Plugins').

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 for when to use the tool through examples (e.g., 'List all custom applications', 'Find ITSM-related apps', 'Check installed integrations'). While it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (such as 'use list_incidents for incidents'), the purpose is self-explanatory and the examples make the intended use cases evident.

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