Pull Script from ServiceNow

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

The description explains that script content is read from the appropriate table and written to the specified file path, adding mechanistic detail beyond the annotations. It does not mention file overwrite behavior or potential errors, but the annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior, so the description adds reasonable context.

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 well-structured, beginning with a concise action statement and followed by a clean list of supported script types. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool that writes a script to a file, the description covers the core behavior and supported types. It does not describe return values or error cases, but these are less critical given the output is a file. The schema and annotations fill most gaps, making the description 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes every parameter. The description adds a mapping of script type names to table names, which are largely redundant with the enum values. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 the tool's function: pulling a script from ServiceNow and saving it to a local file. It lists the specific script types supported, distinguishing it from the sibling push_script by direction (pull vs. push).

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to obtain script content locally) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like push_script or execute_script. No exclusionary or alternative-based guidance is given, leaving usage implicit.

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