sn_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 of disclosing side effects and behavior. It implies a read-only operation through 'traverse' and 'impact analysis,' but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it describe the output structure, behavior when no starting point is provided, or resource implications of deep graph walks. This is a significant transparency gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler. Every phrase adds context (graph walk, directions, depth, use cases). Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters with no required ones, but logically a starting CI (sys_id or ci_name) is necessary for traversal. The description does not state this requirement or what happens if neither is provided. There is no output schema, and the description fails to mention what the return value looks like (e.g., list of relationships, graph nodes, depth-limited results). This is incomplete for a complex graph-walk 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 parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., direction, depth, impact mode). It mentions 'both directions' and 'depth' in prose, but these are already in the schema. No value added beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Traverse CMDB CI relationships (graph walk)', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like sn_query or sn_get that fetch individual CIs. It also names concrete use cases (impact analysis, dependency mapping) and the key modes (upstream/downstream/both, depth).

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 explicitly states 'Use for impact analysis and dependency mapping,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the differentiation from siblings is inferred by the traversal focus, and the 'Use for' phrase offers concrete guidance.

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