List ATF Tests

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent operation, and the description complements this by revealing return fields (test names, descriptions, sys_ids) and highlighting the purpose of sys_ids. It also discloses default behaviors for suite_only and active_only, adding value beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and organized with an Args list and Returns section. Some redundancy exists because the Args list mirrors the schema, but the Returns note about sys_ids is valuable and keeps the description appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by explicitly listing return fields and connecting them to the sibling run tool. It also covers pagination and defaults. Missing details like ordering or error conditions are minor for a read-only list tool, so the description is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args block largely repeats the schema without adding new semantics, though it does clarify that suite_only defaults to false and active_only defaults to true. This adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so it aligns with the baseline.

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 'List Automated Test Framework (ATF) tests and test suites available on the instance,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like servicenow_run_atf_test and other list tools by focusing solely on ATF tests.

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 by stating it returns 'sys_ids (needed for servicenow_run_atf_test)', which explicitly indicates when this tool should be used as a precursor to running an ATF test. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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