find_related_cis

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, explaining that rel_type can be a sys_id or name (resolved to sys_id), direction options, and return structure. It complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations well.

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 well-structured with a concise overview, parameter explanations, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of 5 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers inputs, behavior, and output fields comprehensively. It is fully self-contained.

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 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: ci_sys_id, rel_type (with type resolution), direction (enum, default), limit (range 1-1000, default 25), and offset (pagination). This provides complete semantic meaning.

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 finds CIs related to a given CI by relationship type. It is specific and distinguishes this from generic search tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ci_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?

The description explains what the tool does and how to use parameters, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ci_relationships or find_ci_path.

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