list_common_issues

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

The description discloses the tool returns grouped issue IDs and titles, and implies a read-only, non-destructive behavior. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately conveys the tool's actions.

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 with two main sentences plus a compact list of categories. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter, return type, and points to a related tool. For a simple list tool with one parameter, this is sufficiently 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the single optional parameter 'category', listing all possible values, and clarifying it's for filtering. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's enum.

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 lists all known ServiceNow issues in the guide, with optional category filtering. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'common issues', and distinguishes from sibling tool get_issue_guide for full details.

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 mentions optional category filtering and directs users to get_issue_guide for full fix, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other list tools.

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