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. 'Track' suggests a read operation, but 'stage transitions' could imply mutation. The description doesn't clarify whether this logs transitions (read-only) or triggers state changes (mutative), nor does it address permissions, side effects, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('track asset lifecycle events and stage transitions'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves mutation (based on 'new_stage' parameter), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, return values, error conditions, or how it fits into broader asset management workflows. For a 3-parameter tool with potential state changes, this is inadequate.

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 three parameters (asset_id, new_stage, notes). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. 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 with specific verbs ('track' and 'stage transitions') and resources ('asset lifecycle events'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_asset' or 'retire_asset' by focusing on tracking transitions rather than modifying asset properties. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential lifecycle-related siblings like 'get_hr_lifecycle_events'.

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 (e.g., asset must exist), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., for initial asset creation), or direct alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage is implied 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.