list_table_records

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 explains the behavior: returns records with optional filtering, sorting, pagination, field restriction, and display value control. It does not mention errors or rate limits, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 coherent paragraph, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more terse, but every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which likely describes return format), the description covers all parameters adequately, including pagination and field selection. It lacks discussion of default return size limits or error cases, but is otherwise complete for a listing tool.

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 0%, meaning the description must provide all parameter meaning. It does this thoroughly: explains query format, order_by, order_desc, limit, offset, fields, display_value, and their defaults. This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 it lists/search records in any ServiceNow table by technical name. This distinguishes it from specific sibling tools like list_incidents that target specific tables.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on how to use each parameter (query, order_by, etc.) with syntax examples. Implicitly, it should be used when you need records from an arbitrary table, not a specific one like incidents. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but given sibling tools, the intended use case is clear.

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