Get Ci Relationships

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It clarifies the scope to 'parent and child' relationships, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permissions, pagination, or error conditions.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant information.

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?

For a simple read operation with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality. It lacks usage guidance but the context is otherwise complete for this low-complexity 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents both sys_id and relation_type descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond that.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'relationships for a CMDB configuration item (parent and child)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ci and list_ci.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'for a CMDB configuration item' implies the intended context but does not mention other relationship-related tools or exclusions.

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