cmdb_impact_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'downstream impact' and 'change or outage' context, which is more specific than the raw annotation. However, it does not disclose details about how the analysis is performed (e.g., traversal depth, whether results are approximate, or if it reflects current state vs. simulated changes). With annotations covering the read-only nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, tightly written sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant 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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with only two parameters and read-only annotations. However, it lacks information about the return format or what 'impact' concretely means (e.g., affected CI list, risk score). Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete, but the core use case is still clear.

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 100%: both 'ci_sys_id' and 'depth' have descriptive names and descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Analyze the downstream impact of a Configuration Item change or outage' with a specific verb ('Analyze'), a clear resource ('Configuration Item'), and a well-defined scope ('downstream impact'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_cmdb_ci' (which retrieves a single CI) and 'list_relationships' (which lists raw relationships) by focusing on impact assessment.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool: when analyzing the downstream impact of a CI change or outage. It does not explicitly exclude or recommend against alternatives, but the specificity of the scenario (change/outage) gives sufficient guidance. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, so it does not reach a 5.

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