servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite ('SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which adds useful context about access conditions. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading). The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 conditions of a UI Policy') and includes a necessary prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 (a single-parameter retrieval tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, more context would be beneficial to fully guide an agent.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'sys_id' as a string representing a UI Policy identifier. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'sys_id' is or where to find it. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 and conditions of a UI Policy'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_ui_policies' (which likely lists multiple policies) or 'create_ui_policy' (which creates one), leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus listing 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 includes a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which provides some context for when the tool is applicable. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_ui_policies' or 'get_record' (which might fetch similar data), and doesn't specify any exclusions or complementary tools, leaving usage decisions largely implied.

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