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 describes the basic operation (retrieving details) but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full details' includes. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 essential information. Every word earns its place - it states the action, resource, and parameter format without any waste. Perfectly sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't address what 'full details' means, authentication needs, or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, it's minimally viable but could provide more context about the return format.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameter format ('e.g. INC0012345'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context. 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 specific action ('Get full details') and resource ('an incident'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it retrieves details by 'number or sys_id'. This is more specific than generic 'get_record' or 'query_records' tools in the sibling list.

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 when to use this tool (when you need full details of a specific incident identified by number or sys_id), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides clear context for usage but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to similar tools like 'get_record'.

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