search_cmdb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the tool searches and gives parameter specifics, including an override behavior for encoded_query. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., whether it returns a list, the shape of results) or error conditions. It also omits mention of whether it is purely read-only, though that is implied. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 well-organized: a purpose statement, a usage tip, a structured argument list, and closing references to sibling tools. Each part earns its place, though the argument list could be slightly more compact. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 6-parameter search tool with no annotations and a 0% schema coverage, the description explains every parameter, gives usage context, and routes to sibling tools. It lacks explicit details about return values or edge cases, but since an output schema exists, those are likely covered there. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: name (full/partial), ci_class (with concrete example values), environment (enum-like list), support_group (ownership), encoded_query (raw query, overrides others), and limit (range 1-20). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clearly states the tool searches the CMDB for configuration items and explicitly lists the types (servers, applications, databases, network devices). It differentiates from siblings by stating 'Use get_ci for the full detail of one item, and get_ci_relationships to understand what depends on it,' making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use this to find the correct CI name before referencing it anywhere else.' It also names alternatives (get_ci, get_ci_relationships) and what they are for, providing clear decision criteria. The warning 'do not invent them' gives practical usage guidance.

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