get_ci

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without revealing whether it is read-only, what happens if the sys_id does not exist, or any permission requirements. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but no explicit safety or error semantics are disclosed.

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 with no filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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 simple nature of the tool, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter descriptions, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks information about the optional class_name parameter's effect and potential error behavior, and without annotations, the safety profile is not explicitly stated.

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 (sys_id and class_name), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions sys_id as the identifier, which aligns with the schema, but does not add additional context about formats or constraints.

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 ('CMDB configuration item') with the identifier method ('by sys_id'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ci (list) and get_ci_relationships (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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single CI by ID rather than listing or searching, nor does it reference sibling tools or exclusions.

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