service_mapping_summary

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

The description aligns with the 'readOnlyHint' annotation, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not add any behavioral details beyond what the annotation already provides, such as whether the output is a list or graph.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the output format or scope (e.g., whether it returns all dependencies or a filtered set). It could benefit from mentioning the nature of the response.

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 sole parameter 'service_sys_id' is fully described in the schema as 'System ID of the business service'. The description does not add extra meaning or context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: viewing service dependencies and related CIs for impact analysis. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'cmdb_impact_analysis', which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cmdb_impact_analysis'. The description lacks explicit context on prerequisites or use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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