Discover Table Schema

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the load. It details what is returned (table name, label, parent class, field details) and optional includes. However, it does not disclose behavioral aspects like read-only nature, auth requirements, or error handling, leaving gaps.

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 6 sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, followed by return details and bulleted use cases. Every sentence adds value with no 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 6 parameters (only 1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, return data, and use cases well. It lacks information on edge cases like invalid table names or missing parameters, but is otherwise 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds overarching context (e.g., 'including all fields, types, references') but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Discover the full schema of a ServiceNow table' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'lookup_columns' by highlighting the comprehensive nature (fields, types, references, optional includes).

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?

Key use cases are listed (understand structure before querying, discover references, find choice values, review UI policies/business rules). These imply when to use the tool, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are provided.

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