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. It states the tool validates for specific concerns but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (likely, but not confirmed), what permissions are required, whether it modifies the artifact, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and validation scope without redundancy. No unnecessary details or fluff are present.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the validation output looks like (e.g., report format, success/failure indicators), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a validation tool that likely returns detailed results, this lack of output information is a significant gap.

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 ('table' and 'sys_id') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain artifact types beyond the schema's examples or how sys_id is obtained). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('artifact'), and specifies the validation scope ('best practices, security issues, and performance concerns'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_data_quality' or 'check_table_completeness' by focusing on artifact validation rather than data quality or completeness checks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'validate_deployment' or 'validate_property' which are also validation tools.

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., artifact must exist), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from other validation tools like 'validate_deployment' or 'validate_property'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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