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. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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: 'Get full details of a catalog item including its variables.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's understanding, though it meets the basic threshold for such a simple 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'sys_id_or_name' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for adequate parameter semantics.

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: 'Get full details of a catalog item including its variables.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('catalog item'), and scope ('full details... including its variables'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_catalog' or 'list_catalog_items,' which might provide partial or filtered results, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'get_catalog_item' over 'list_catalog_items' for detailed information or 'search_catalog' for broader queries. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction.

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