Get Configuration Item

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining that the identifier can be a 'contains' match (not just exact) and that the return includes hardware, network, OS, and relationship details. These are behavioral traits beyond the annotation flags, providing useful context for the agent.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a concise Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds pertinent information with no redundancy or filler. It avoids restating the tool title.

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 read-only single-CI tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input usage and return content. It mentions the full CI record including hardware, network, OS, and relationships, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. A minor gap is the lack of error behavior when no match is found, but given the openWorldHint and tool simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description enriches semantics by noting that identifier supports 'exact match or contains' and that class_name is used 'if name is ambiguous', giving the agent a better understanding of how parameters behave in practice.

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 is explicit: 'Get detailed information about a specific CMDB configuration item by name or sys_id.' It clearly identifies the action (get), resource (CMDB configuration item), and scope (by name or sys_id). This differentiates it from siblings like search_ci (search) and get_record (generic), while the mention of class_name further narrows the use case.

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 context: you need a CI name or sys_id, and class_name helps when the name is ambiguous. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_ci or get_ci_relationships, nor does it provide exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than direct.

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