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 mentions state filtering but doesn't describe what 'list' actually returns (format, fields, pagination), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a listing 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 states the core functionality upfront with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool and gets directly to the point without 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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't describe what data is returned, in what format, whether there's pagination, or any error conditions. While the purpose is clear, the operational context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively is missing given the lack of structured behavioral and output documentation.

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 (state, query, limit) with their types and descriptions. The description mentions state filtering but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the structured documentation.

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 ('Update Sets'), and specifies the filtering capability ('by state'). It distinguishes this as a listing tool rather than a creation or modification tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list_* tools in the sibling set beyond the specific resource type.

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 other list_* tools in the sibling set (like list_workspaces, list_users, list_assets), but no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other listing tools or search/query tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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