suggest_ci_class

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's non-mutating and flexible nature is disclosed. The description adds the parity with ServiceNow Get_SimilarCI_Classes, which hints at behavior but doesn't elaborate on return format or potential limitations. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the parity note is a helpful aside. It is efficient 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?

While the tool is simple, it lacks an output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. It says 'suggest' but doesn't specify whether it returns a single class or a list (though the limit parameter implies a list). The parity reference gives some context but doesn't fully substitute for a clear return description. This is a notable gap for a tool with no output schema.

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% for both parameters (keyword and limit). The description merely restates that it takes a keyword without adding new semantics. The limit parameter is described in the schema as 'Max classes to return (default 10)', and the description doesn't enhance that. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: suggesting the correct CMDB CI class for a keyword before creating a CI. The verb 'suggest' and the context 'before creating a CI' make it distinct from sibling tools like search_cmdb_ci or get_cmdb_ci, which query existing CIs rather than proposing classes. The parity reference to ServiceNow's Get_SimilarCI_Classes adds specificity.

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 usage context: 'before creating a CI'. This tells the agent when to invoke this tool (as a preparatory step). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when the class is already known or when a direct search is preferred. This is a minor gap given the strong contextual cue.

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