It is often said in my workplace (the single largest employer in my country) that a person's job description is many times more important than their job title, which can often be very generic. It is true that you cannot always tell what a person does from their job title alone.
That said, the wording of a job title is important. A running joke in the sitcom 'The Office' is that one ambitious employee constantly refers to himself as 'Assistant Regional Manager' which is corrected each time by the manager to 'Assistant to the Regional Manager'. The former sounds like someone who does very similar work to the manager but with slightly less authority, whereas an assistant to someone could literally be any supporting work and may make some think of menial tasks such as filing, diary management and running for coffee.
Your suggestion just doesn't sound natural for a number of reasons. First of all, if a manager's job title appears in your own it would not usually come first - as in the example above, it would more likely be 'assistant to the vice president'. But also, 'ServiceNow Developer' sounds very specific and it seems odd that a developer for something specific (whatever 'ServiceNow' is) would work directly to one person such as the vice president. Either they are the only developer working to him, in which case no need to mention what they develop; or they are one of many developers for that service in which case they would be developing together, because that's how development works.