servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full details' includes. 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 ('Get full details of an HR case') and includes essential parameter context. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what 'full details' includes or provide more behavioral context. The description meets basic requirements but could be more complete.

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 already documents the single parameter 'number_or_sysid' with its type and format. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the HRCS... format example, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. 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 full details') and resource ('HR case'), specifying it retrieves comprehensive information about a specific HR case. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_hr_cases' (which lists multiple cases) and 'get_hr_case_activity' (which focuses on activity logs), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 detailed information about a specific HR case identified by number or sys_id, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other HR-related tools (e.g., 'get_hr_case_activity' for activity logs, 'update_hr_case' for modifications). It also doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication or permissions.

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