servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what metrics are retrieved but doesn't describe the return format, whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how missing parameters affect behavior. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably queries data.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the essential 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 operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what metrics are retrieved but doesn't explain the return format, data freshness, or potential limitations. Given the lack of structured behavioral information, more 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?

The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It mentions 'pipeline' and 'days' implicitly but provides no additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or semantic constraints.

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 specific verbs ('get') and resources ('deployment frequency, failure rate, and lead time metrics for a pipeline'). It distinguishes itself from other 'get_' tools by focusing on DevOps metrics, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling metrics tools.

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 for DevOps pipeline analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to other tools in the extensive sibling list.

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