servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation with optional filters. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are paginated, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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 states the core functionality and key optional features. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words on unnecessary elaboration.

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 list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an Import Set is, what the return format looks like, whether results are paginated, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (which suggest a sophisticated system), more context is needed for proper tool selection and use.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering by 'state or staging table' but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between state and query parameters or provide usage examples.

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 ('List') and resource ('Import Sets'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on Import Sets, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools that might exist in the sibling set.

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 mentions optional filtering by state or staging table, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_import_set' or other list tools. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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