discover_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all source fields (none skipped) and that it should be followed by user review. It warns about discarding prior suggestions if sn_table changes. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects, nor does it mention authorization needs or rate limits.

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 sections (purpose, workflow, important notes). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds useful information for an AI agent.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It explains what the tool returns, the workflow to follow, how to handle edge cases (table changes, unmapped fields), and what actions to take after calling it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the workflow and dependencies: sn_table must come from suggest_target_table, platform can be any string, and object_name is the source object. This adds value beyond the schema 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 the tool's purpose: 'Discover ALL source fields and ServiceNow target fields side by side.' It specifies it returns complete field lists, auto-suggested staging table, and field mapping proposals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_target_table, which is referenced in the workflow.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after sn_table is known (via suggest_target_table first if needed), and before build_artifacts. It also states when NOT to use it (if sn_table changes, call again from scratch). Alternatives are mentioned (suggest_target_table).

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