Run ATF Test

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the test 'runs on the instance' and that the tool 'waits for it to complete before returning the result,' plus it lists return fields. Annotations already convey destructive/read-only hints, so this extra disclosure is valued. It doesn't warn about side effects, but the destructiveHint already covers that.

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?

Two compact sentences cover the purpose, execution behavior, and return values, followed by a one-sentence usage guideline. Every sentence contributes new information with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, execution behavior, return values, and usage context. With no output schema, the description adequately specifies what the agent can expect, and the sibling context clarifies the difference from suite execution.

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%, with both instance and test_sys_id fully described. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Execute a single ServiceNow ATF test by its sys_id', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_atf_test_suite (single vs suite) and find_atf_tests (finding vs executing).

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 final sentence explicitly says 'Use this tool when the user wants to run a specific ATF test and see its results,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling name run_atf_test_suite implies when to use the suite variant.

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