Get Ci

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose ('Get a single...') without adding context about read-only nature, error handling, authentication requirements, or return behavior. The description adds no information beyond the tool name and schema.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and key identifier. It contains no filler or repetition, earning every word.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter documentation, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke it correctly. It misses only optional usage context (e.g., when to prefer it over get_record), but the core function is adequately specified for this simple getter.

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 schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, including the default for class_name. The description does not add any extra meaning about parameter syntax, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema provides, so it holds baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single CMDB configuration item') with a clear key ('by sys_id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ci (multiple items) and get_ci_relationships (relationships), and clarifies it's CI-specific rather than generic get_record.

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: use when you need a single CI and know its sys_id. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as preferring list_ci for queries or get_ci_relationships for linked items. The context is inferred rather than stated.

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