Get CMDB Relationships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that it returns only direct relationships and accepts direction filters, which is not obvious from the annotations. It also clarifies that the sys_id can come from any CI class table. It does not disclose return format or pagination, but for a read-only tool with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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 two short paragraphs, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second giving use cases. The second paragraph adds practical parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and strong schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, use cases, and parameter details, while annotations handle safety. Although there is no output schema, the description hints at return directions appropriately, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage for all 5 parameters, each with descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples of relationship types (e.g., 'Depends on::Used by', 'Contains::Contained by') and clarifying that ci_sys_id can come from any CI class table. This enhances understanding without repeating schema details.

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 verb and resource: 'Get direct relationships of a CMDB Configuration Item (CI).' It also specifies the return directions (upstream, downstream, or both) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'traverse_cmdb_graph' by emphasizing 'direct' relationships. The use cases (impact analysis, dependency mapping, topology) further clarify intent.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'Use this for impact analysis, dependency mapping, and understanding CI topology.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with 'traverse_cmdb_graph' for indirect relationships. The guidance is present but not fully exclusionary.

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