get_cmdb_ci

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds 'complete information', which implies a broad return set, but this is slightly contradicted by the optional 'fields' parameter that can limit results. It does not disclose response format, pagination, or permissions, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 entire description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose immediately. The phrase 'complete information' is slightly vague but does not detract significantly from clarity, making it a well-structured minimal description.

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 get-by-ID tool with good schema and read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify how 'fields' interacts with the 'complete information' claim, nor does it hint at when to prefer this over search_cmdb_ci. The absence of an output schema also leaves return behavior unspecified.

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%, as both parameters have descriptions: ci_sys_id as 'System ID of the CI' and fields as 'Optional comma-separated fields'. The tool description adds no extra semantic context beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'configuration item', indicating a fetch operation for a single CI. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_cmdb_ci' (search) and 'list_relationships' (relationships), making its purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_cmdb_ci or other get_* tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters.

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