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 the ATF_ENABLED prerequisite but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it runs tests synchronously/asynchronously, what output to expect, whether it modifies system state, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely executes tests, this is insufficient behavioral 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core action and the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage or redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool that executes test suites with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool runs (does it return results? status? logs?), what the execution behavior is, or what the agent should expect as output. The ATF_ENABLED prerequisite is helpful but insufficient for proper contextual understanding.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sys_id' clearly documented as 'System ID of the test suite'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('ATF test suite'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_atf_test' or 'get_atf_suite', but the verb 'Execute' suggests running versus retrieving.

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 one explicit prerequisite ('requires ATF_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context for when the tool can be used. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'run_atf_test' or 'get_atf_suite_result', nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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