sn_nl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that read operations execute immediately while write operations require execute=true, which is a critical behavioral distinction. It does not disclose other potential behaviors like failure modes, permissions, or idempotency, but the most important execution semantics are addressed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's essence, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes: what it is, what it supports, and the key execution rule.

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 tool's complexity (supports many operation types) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview. It covers the range of operations and the critical execute semantics. It does not mention return formats or limitations, but for a natural language interface, this 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (text, force, confirm, execute), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a useful note about execute=true for writes but does not elaborate on force or confirm beyond what the schema states. Thus, the description adds minimal extra meaning over 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 this is a natural language interface for ServiceNow that translates plain English into API calls. It lists supported operations (queries, aggregates, schema lookups, creates, updates, batch), distinguishing it from the specific sibling tools like sn_query or sn_create. The verb 'translates' and resource 'ServiceNow' make the purpose explicit.

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 implies usage: use this when the user provides a natural language request. It mentions supported operation types and execution semantics (reads execute immediately, writes need execute=true). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or explicitly point to sibling tools as alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about whether direct tools are preferred for programmatic or precise operations.

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