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 for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions what information is retrieved ('details... including tabs and lists') but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from included details.

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 and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks important context about behavioral aspects and doesn't help the agent choose between this and similar sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sys_id' clearly documented as 'Workspace sys_id'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('configurable agent workspace'), and specifies what details are included ('tabs and lists'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'get_record' that might retrieve similar information.

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 are many sibling tools that retrieve workspace-related information (like 'list_workspaces', 'configure_workspace_list', 'create_workspace'), but the description doesn't indicate this is for retrieving details of a specific workspace versus listing multiple workspaces or performing other operations.

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