list_relationships

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

The description confirms the read-only nature of the tool ('Show') which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as whether relationships are direct or transitive, or any potential limitations. With annotations already indicating safety, the description's contribution is minimal.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and the required input. It could be slightly more specific about the nature of the relationships (e.g., direct only or all levels), but it remains sufficient for effective use.

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?

The single parameter 'ci_sys_id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'System ID of the CI'. The description mentions 'for a CI', reinforcing the parameter's purpose without adding new semantic details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description complements but does not extend the schema.

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's purpose: 'Show parent and child relationships for a CI'. The verb 'show' indicates a read operation, and 'parent and child relationships' specifies exactly what is retrieved, distinguishing it from other list tools like list_incidents or list_users.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ci_relationship or other list tools. Usage is implied based on the need to retrieve relationships, but no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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