cmdb_services_for_ci

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 covered. The description adds context about the reverse-lookup nature and the underlying association table, which is useful. It does not describe return format, pagination, or error behavior, but for a read-only lookup the annotation coverage is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a useful reference to the ServiceNow API for context. Every word earns its place.

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 reverse-lookup tool with read-only annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (no output schema exists), nor does it clarify how to handle cases where both ci and ci_name are provided or neither. It also omits any mention of default behavior for limit, which is in the schema but not reinforced. Given the tool's low complexity, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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%, so all parameters (ci, limit, ci_name) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—for example, it doesn't clarify the relationship between ci and ci_name or whether both can be used. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: a reverse lookup to find which application services contain a given CI/server. It names the underlying table (svc_ci_assoc) and references parity with a ServiceNow API, giving a specific and unambiguous action. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_application_services, which also deal with services, so it misses an opportunity for differentiation.

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 implies a use case (when you have a CI and want its services) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, what the sibling list_application_services does differently, or any prerequisites. The parity note hints at a standard behavior but doesn't serve as usage guidance.

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