servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional search filter' but doesn't describe the tool's behavior in terms of permissions required, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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: 'List users with optional search filter'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key feature (filtering) without any wasted words. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (a list operation with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, pagination, or output format, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The schema covers parameters well, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 both parameters ('query' and 'limit') with their types and descriptions. The description adds marginal value by implying filtering functionality ('optional search filter'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List users with optional search filter'. It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('users'), and scope ('with optional search filter'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'list_groups', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 user-related tools like 'get_user' (for single users) or 'list_groups' (for groups). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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