service_mapping_summary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds minimal context by specifying that the tool returns dependencies and related CIs, but doesn't disclose depth, pagination, or any output format. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 that directly states the purpose. No wasted words, perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't describe what a 'summary' includes, how deep the dependency traversal goes, or what related CIs are returned. This could be complete enough for a basic usage, but there is room for more detail.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (service_sys_id: 'System ID of the business service'). The description doesn't add additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for high 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: 'View service dependencies and related CIs for impact analysis'. It specifies the verb 'View' and the resource (service dependencies and CIs). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like cmdb_impact_analysis, the focus on 'summary' and dependencies is reasonably specific.

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 phrase 'for impact analysis' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmdb_impact_analysis or list_relationships. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, only a general context.

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