list_script_includes

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

With no annotations, the description lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, its potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description merely states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, or error handling, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the concise structure.

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 description provides no parameter information, while the schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage (only titles like 'Active' without context). This leaves semantics unclear, such as what 'active' or 'client_callable' mean in ServiceNow, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the action ('List') and resource ('script includes from ServiceNow'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_script_include' (singular retrieval) or 'create_script_include' (creation), leaving the scope ambiguous between listing all vs. filtered subsets.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'get_script_include' for single-record retrieval or 'create_script_include' for creation, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context.

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