List Code Search Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what search groups are and that each instance typically has a default group. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful domain context beyond the structured fields.

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 and well-structured: a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by a short explanatory paragraph, and a final sentence with precise cross-tool usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or verbosity.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what search groups are, default behavior, and how to use the results with related tools. It covers all necessary operational knowledge for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% for the two parameters (limit and instance), so the schema already fully documents them. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the output fields (name, sys_id) in relation to other tools. Overall, it meets the baseline without adding extra parameter semantics.

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 code search groups on a ServiceNow instance, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like code_search and add_code_search_table by explaining how its output is used as inputs to those tools.

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 usage guidance: the group `name` should be used as the `search_group` parameter in `code_search`, and `sys_id` when adding tables via `add_code_search_table`. This clearly instructs when and how to use the tool's results, effectively differentiating it from alternatives.

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