cmdb_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the underlying GET endpoint (implying read-only) and that secret fields are redacted in the response. It omits permission requirements, behavior for missing keys, and vdom resolution, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Endpoint is front-loaded, examples follow, and the parameter/return lists are short. The parameter bullets largely restate the schema descriptions, which is slightly redundant, but nothing is bloated.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, valid path/key shapes, vdom as optional, and that the response is raw JSON with secrets redacted. Only edge-case behavior (unknown key, vdom default) is missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns above that by explaining what a key looks like ('policy id, object name, interface name, ...') and giving real path/key pairs that show the relationship between the two parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one configuration object by key') and pins the exact REST endpoint GET /api/v2/cmdb/{path}/{key}. The concrete path/key examples make the scope unambiguous; it differs from cmdb_list by being single-object retrieval, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 three worked examples (firewall/policy, system/interface, vpn.ipsec/phase1-interface) imply when the tool is applicable and show valid path shapes, but there is no explicit statement of when to use cmdb_get instead of cmdb_list or the specialized list_*/get_*_detail tools.

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