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 states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the subflow doesn't exist), permissions required, rate limits, or whether it returns structured data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a subflow') and specifies key components ('including its inputs, outputs, and actions'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving detailed metadata), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the scope of details returned but doesn't cover behavioral aspects or error cases. With no output schema, it should ideally hint at the return structure, but the description focuses solely on what is retrieved, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 'name_or_sysid' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of valid names or sys_ids, format 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 a subflow'), specifying what details are included ('inputs, outputs, and actions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_subflows' (which likely returns a list) and 'create_subflow' (which creates rather than retrieves). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_flow' or other get_* tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the subflow's name or sys_id), compare it to 'list_subflows' for browsing, or specify scenarios where this detailed view is necessary. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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