Get change request ci

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the failure modes (MissingParameterError for a missing sys_id, ParameterError on invalid params or JSON deserialization) and the return shape. However, it claims missing change_request_sys_id raises an error while the schema marks every property optional with null defaults, which muddies the failure contract.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Sphinx-style :param/:return/:raises block is tidy, but it is developer-docstring boilerplate ('parsed Pydantic model', ':rtype: Response') that conveys little to an agent. The bulky parameter block documents a single field out of 22, so the length is not matched by usefulness.

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 read tool with 22 undocumented, all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete: it says nothing about how the many filters interact, whether any are required in practice, or what the CI payload contains. Annotations cover safety, but the operation's practical invocation surface is largely unexplained.

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 0% across 22 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it covers only one field (change_request_sys_id, with its type). The remaining 21 parameters — association_type, cmdb_ci_sys_ids, sysparm_query, response_length, refresh_impacted_services, and the rest — are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess at filtering and pagination semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve the configuration item (CI) associated with a change request. That is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_change_request_tasks or get_change_request_worker, though the description does not explicitly name any sibling to contrast against.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent ServiceNow readers (get_change_request, get_cmdb, get_change_request_tasks, create_change_request_ci_association). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of the association_type or cmdb_ci_sys_id filtering paths present in the schema.

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