Get cmdb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that invalid parameters raise ParameterError and that the return is a parsed Pydantic model, but does not cover permissions, rate limits, or behavior when cmdb_id is omitted.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the description is short. The Sphinx :type: and :rtype: lines add some schema-duplicating clutter, but not enough to obscure the content.

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 simple single-record read tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic return and error context. It remains incomplete on optional cmdb_id behavior and gives no usage context or sibling differentiation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains cmdb_id as the unique identifier of the CMDB record and gives its type as str, but the schema shows it is nullable, optional, and defaults to null; the description does not clarify optionality or what happens if it is omitted.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: getting CMDB information, and the single parameter makes clear this retrieves a CMDB record. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_cmdb_instance or get_cmdb_instances, so it falls short of a 5.

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 alternatives. It says only that retrieval is 'based on specified parameters,' with no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing context.

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