connect_servicenow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether credentials are required, whether a connection state is persisted, whether existing connections are overwritten, or any side effects on other ServiceNow tools.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence does not earn its place because it conveys no useful information beyond the tool name, offering no structural benefit.

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?

The description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, prerequisites, or impact. There are no annotations, output schema, or contextual clues, making it impossible to safely invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is vacuously complete. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate even though the description adds no semantic value beyond the name; there is nothing to describe.

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 'Connect ServiceNow.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what connecting actually entails, such as authentication, configuration, or scope. It does not differentiate from related tools like disconnect_servicenow or other ServiceNow operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no context about whether this is a one-time setup or per-session action, and no mention of related tools. The agent receives zero instruction on choosing this tool.

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