get_ci

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it states the tool returns a complete CI record plus open incidents, and enumerates the included fields such as operational status, business criticality, support group, and current issues. It does not discuss error behavior or access requirements, but for a simple read-oriented getter this is adequate.

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 description is compact and front-loaded. The main purpose appears first, the parameter example is packed into one line, and the sibling guidance is one short sentence. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name is present.

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?

Given this is a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly: what it returns, the exact argument format, and when to choose the alternative sibling. The output schema covers the return shape, so no additional detail is needed.

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%, but the description documents the only parameter meaningfully: 'name: exact CI name such as "PAY-DB-01"'. It clarifies precision and gives a concrete example, compensating well for the empty schema 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one configuration item in full, together with its open incidents.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_ci_relationships by stating that the sibling is for dependency graphs rather than the item itself.

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 explicitly says to use get_ci_relationships when a dependency graph is needed instead, giving an agent a clear decision rule. It also explains what kind of information get_ci provides, so the agent can judge when this tool fits the user request.

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