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 mentions filtering but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), rate limits, or what the return format looks like (since no output schema exists). The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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 ('List security incidents') and adds necessary context ('with filters'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for a listing tool with well-documented parameters.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, return values, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns a list of incidents with filtering, more detail on output structure, pagination, or error handling would be needed to be complete, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and enums (e.g., state values, severity mapping). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning filters generically. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 ('security incidents'), and specifies the filtering capability. It distinguishes itself from other incident-related tools like 'create_security_incident' or 'update_security_incident' by focusing on listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_incidents' (if present) or explain its specific scope beyond filtering.

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, context for filtering, or compare it to other listing tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'list_incidents' or 'get_security_incident'). Usage is implied through the filtering parameters but not explicitly stated.

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