servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the attachment doesn't exist. The description is accurate but lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get metadata') and specifies the key details (what metadata: name, type, size; how: by sys_id). There is zero wasted verbiage.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what metadata is returned but doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or potential errors. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 the single parameter 'attachment_sys_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 the specific action ('Get metadata'), the resource ('attachment'), and the scope ('specific attachment by its sys_id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_attachments' (which lists multiple) and 'upload_attachment' (which creates).

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 implies usage when you need metadata for a specific known attachment ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_attachments' for browsing or 'get_record' for general record retrieval. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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