get_ci_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and 'parent and child' adds directionality. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, pagination, or error behavior, which could matter for a CMDB tool.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 read operation, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but the purpose and basic scope are clear. This is a minor gap for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters like sys_id or relation_type; it relies entirely on the schema to explain their purpose and optionality.

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 retrieves relationships for a CMDB configuration item, specifically parent and child. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ci and list_ci, which fetch the CI itself or list CIs.

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 relationship data is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention relation_type filtering or provide context for selection.

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