Run ATF Test

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the test runs on the instance, waits for completion, and returns name, status, run time, and output. This provides clear behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two short paragraphs: one covering action and behavior, another for usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and no fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers return values (name, status, run time, output). For a simple tool with two parameters, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand purpose, behavior, and usage.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, but it does note the fallback to SN_AUTH_ALIAS for 'instance', which adds minor value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema already explains parameters well.

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,' specifying the verb (execute) and resource (single ATF test). It distinguishes from the sibling 'run_atf_test_suite' by emphasizing 'single' test.

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 includes 'Use this tool when the user wants to run a specific ATF test and see its results.' This explicitly states when to use it, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling 'run_atf_test_suite' provides implicit contrast.

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