servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'mobile applet' beyond the parenthetical. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with clarifying parenthetical. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how results are structured, whether there are default limits, or how filtering works. The parenthetical adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information.

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 50% (one of two parameters has a description). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'app_config' filtering entails, what format the 'limit' parameter uses, or provide examples. With moderate schema coverage but no compensatory detail in the description, baseline 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 action ('List') and resource ('mobile applets') with additional clarifying context ('mini-apps within the mobile experience'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_mobile_app_configs' and 'list_mobile_layouts' by specifying the exact resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like 'get_mobile_app_config' or 'get_mobile_analytics'.

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, appropriate contexts, or compare with sibling tools like 'list_mobile_app_configs' or 'get_mobile_app_config'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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