Run ATF Test Suite

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by noting that the tool will 'wait for all tests to complete,' indicating a blocking operation. It also specifies that it 'Returns a summary with pass/fail/skip/error counts,' which is not part of the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those, but it adds useful execution details.

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 sentences long with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and behavior, and the second sentence gives usage guidance. Every clause adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description adequately covers the high-level behavior and return value. It states the tool waits for completion and returns a summary with counts and status, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the outcome. It does not explain potential side effects or error conditions, but the annotations and schema provide enough detail for a moderately complex tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the 'provide exactly one' constraint for suite_name vs suite_sys_id, which is already stated in the schema property descriptions. It does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so no higher score is warranted.

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: 'Execute a ServiceNow ATF test suite and wait for all tests to complete.' It uses a specific verb ('Execute') and a specific resource ('Suite'), and differentiates from the sibling 'run_atf_test' by emphasizing the suite context. The mention of returning a summary with pass/fail/skip/error counts further clarifies the tool's output.

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 an explicit usage statement: 'Use this tool when the user wants to run a collection of ATF tests as a suite.' This provides clear context for when to choose this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'as a suite' implies distinction from running a single test, which is present in the sibling tool list.

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