Get ci lifecycle status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the notion that the state returned is 'current' (a live read rather than cached), and says nothing about which CI states can be returned or any access constraints. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is fair.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is well sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call — the CI identifier's location and format are unknown. The annotations cover safety, but the invocation-critical detail is missing.

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% and both parameters ('params' as a free-form object and 'params_json' as a string) are entirely opaque. The description says 'the specified CI' but never indicates which parameter carries the CI identifier, nor the expected identifier format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('current operational state for the specified CI'), so the read intent is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from lifecycle siblings such as get_ci_lifecycle_active_actions or the check_ci_lifecycle_* family, so an agent must guess which one answers its question.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative servicenow_set_ci_lifecycle_status (the mutating counterpart) or the check_ci_lifecycle_* tools. The agent gets no routing help at all.

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