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. It mentions 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if results are paginated, the format of returned events, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 and includes relevant examples. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of events, their structure), any error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context to be fully 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (employee_sys_id, event_type, limit) with their types and descriptions. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering by event type with examples, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as default behavior or constraints not in the schema.

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 HR lifecycle events for an employee' with specific examples (promotions, transfers, leaves). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('HR lifecycle events'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_hr_case_activity' or 'get_hr_profile', which prevents a perfect 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_hr_case' or 'list_hr_cases'. It only states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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