Get cmdb instances

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 fully covered without the description. The description adds that it returns a list of CIs scoped by class and hints at pagination via the limit/offset params, but it does not describe the response shape, pagination semantics, or query-encoding expectations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the Sphinx-style param block is well structured. The ':type' lines partially restate types already present in the schema, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core retrieval intent and the main query params, but leaves the majority of the parameter surface undocumented. An agent can make a basic call but would be guessing at the purpose of most inputs.

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 compensate. It usefully defines the four query-relevant params (className, sysparm_limit, sysparm_offset, sysparm_query), but 8 of 12 params (source, sys_id, attributes, rel_sys_id, api_parameters, inbound_relations, outbound_relations, data) remain entirely opaque in both schema and description.

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+resource ('Returns the available configuration items (CI)') scoped to 'a specified CMDB class', which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this plural-list tool from close siblings like servicenow_get_cmdb or servicenow_get_cmdb_instance (singular), so an agent cannot route confidently between them from the description alone.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The phrase 'for a specified CMDB class' implies the retrieval context but never names a competing sibling or a condition that selects this tool over get_cmdb/get_cmdb_instance.

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