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. While '[Write]' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether this triggers immediate delivery, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, whether broadcasts are logged or reversible, or what happens on failure. For a tool that sends emergency communications, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently communicates the core purpose. The '[Write]' prefix is front-loaded and helpful. There's zero wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 sends emergency broadcasts with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context: expected response format, error conditions, permission requirements, delivery guarantees, or how 'emergency' differs from regular notifications. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool responsibly.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain format expectations for recipients, channel behavior, or emergency-specific constraints. 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 action ('send') and resource ('emergency broadcast notification') with target ('to users or groups'). It's specific about the notification type being 'emergency broadcast'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_push_notification' or 'schedule_notification', which prevents 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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts for 'emergency' broadcasts, or comparison to similar notification tools in the sibling list. 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.