list_relationships

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

The description adds little beyond the tool name; it does not disclose return format, whether relationships are direct/recursive, or behavior when no relationships exist. Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description does not elaborate on what openWorldHint means in practice.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, the description is reasonably complete. However, the lack of an output schema and the openWorldHint annotation leave some ambiguity about result completeness and format, which the description does not address.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter ci_sys_id with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'parent and child relationships for a CI', making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like cmdb_impact_analysis, which might also show relationships.

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 usage when one needs to view CI relationship hierarchies, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like cmdb_impact_analysis. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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