sn_query

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 states the tool 'Returns records' and highlights support for field selection, pagination, sorting, and display values, giving useful context about the tool's behavior. While it doesn't explicitly declare this as a read-only operation, the term 'Query' strongly implies it, and no contrary annotations exist. This is more than adequate for a non-destructive tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Query any ServiceNow table') and immediately lists the key features. There is zero wasted words or redundancy, making it highly concise and effective.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and capabilities sufficiently. It does not explain the response structure in detail, but the statement 'Returns records' gives a general expectation. Since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, the description is nearly complete, though a note on response format would make it fully 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%, with each parameter having a detailed description (e.g., query syntax, sort prefix, display modes). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters well.

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 the specific verb 'Query' with the resource 'any ServiceNow table', clearly stating the tool's function. It also lists key capabilities (field selection, pagination, sorting, display values) which distinguish it from sibling tools like sn_get or sn_aggregate. This meets the benchmark for a specific and differentiating purpose.

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: this is for querying ServiceNow tables. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., sn_get for single records, sn_aggregate for summary queries) or provide any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance about alternatives, so it falls short of a 4.

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