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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the sys_id_or_name is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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') and specifies key components ('template and conditions'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, response structure), usage context, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured fields. For a tool that retrieves entity details, more context on what 'full details' includes 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sys_id_or_name' documented in the schema as 'Notification sys_id or name'. The description adds marginal value by implying the parameter identifies a notification definition, but doesn't clarify semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, uniqueness constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 ('full details of an email notification definition'), including specific components like 'template and conditions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_notifications' (which would list multiple) and 'create_notification' (which creates rather than retrieves). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_notification_subscriptions' or other get_* tools for notification-related entities.

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 (e.g., needing a valid sys_id_or_name), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk retrieval), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_notifications' for discovery or 'update_notification' for modifications. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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