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 states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. Every word earns its place: 'Get details' (action), 'customer account' (resource), 'including contacts and open cases count' (scope). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and usage guidance. The absence of output schema means the description doesn't explain return values, but for a basic 'get' operation, this might be acceptable.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'name_or_sysid'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., examples of valid inputs, format constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'customer account details', specifying what information is included (contacts and open cases count). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_csm_accounts' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific account rather than listing multiple accounts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools that might retrieve different account aspects.

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, differentiate from similar tools like 'get_record' or 'get_csm_contact', or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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