servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the details are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if there are any side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned beyond 'test count', doesn't mention authentication requirements, and doesn't provide context about when to use this versus other ATF-related tools. For a read operation in a complex system with many sibling tools, this is inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sys_id_or_name' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about this parameter beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a test suite'), and it includes additional information about what details are returned ('including test count'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_atf_test' or 'get_atf_suite_result', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools related to ATF (Automated Test Framework) such as 'get_atf_test', 'get_atf_suite_result', 'list_atf_suites', and 'run_atf_suite', but the description doesn't mention any of them or provide context for choosing this specific tool.

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