Run ATF Test

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the annotations: requires ATF plugin and role, asynchronous execution, results may not be immediately available, and advice to check sys_atf_result table. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects and limitations, going beyond the simple hints in 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 a clear opening statement, a concise prerequisites line, a bulleted argument list, and a critical asynchronous note. It is slightly verbose but every section earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity of running ATF tests, the description covers essential context: preconditions, argument details, return value (pass/fail with step results), and asynchronous behavior with fallback guidance. While it does not detail error specifics or result interpretation, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 mostly repeats the schema's parameter descriptions, though it adds a useful hint that sys_id comes from servicenow_list_atf_tests and clarifies response_format output. These additions are marginal and do not substantially compensate beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Execute an ATF test or test suite and return the result.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like servicenow_list_atf_tests, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context: it mentions prerequisites (plugin and role) and the source of the sys_id ('from servicenow_list_atf_tests'). It also notes the asynchronous execution and fallback result table, giving practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative tools.

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