Run ATF Test Suite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool waits for test completion and returns a summary with pass/fail/skip/error counts and overall status. This is transparent about the synchronous nature and output, but lacks details on potential side effects or required permissions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a usage line. Every sentence adds essential information—purpose, behavior, identification method, return format, and usage context. No superfluous words.

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 covers the core functionality well: execution and waiting, identification constraint, and return summary. Given 9 parameters and no output schema, it is fairly complete. It could add more context about optional parameters (browser, OS, etc.) but those are documented in the schema. The lack of annotations increases the need for description completeness, which is mostly satisfied.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying the constraint to provide exactly one of 'suite_name' or 'suite_sys_id', which is not enforced by the schema. This clarifies the identification logic beyond the schema definitions.

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 action ('Execute a ServiceNow ATF test suite and wait for all tests to complete') and the resource ('ATF test suite'). It also specifies how to identify the suite (by name or sys_id), and the sibling tool 'run_atf_test' helps differentiate between running a single test versus a suite.

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 guideline: 'Use this tool when the user wants to run a collection of ATF tests as a suite.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'run_atf_test' for single tests.

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