List Groups

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds useful context about default filtering (active groups), pagination, and return fields (name, description, manager, type, sys_id), going beyond simple parameter listings.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, a compact args list, and a returns section. Every line adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 listing tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the default filter, pagination, output format, and return fields. It does not mention limitations or edge cases, but given the simplicity and strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable examples for the query parameter (e.g., 'active=true', 'nameLIKEnetwork') and summarizes limit/offset and response_format, providing semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 'List ServiceNow user groups' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_incidents or list_users. It immediately conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 (listing groups) and includes example query filters, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The purpose is unambiguous, so the lack of explicit alternative references is acceptable.

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