Get CMDB Relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes the read-only nature and filtering options but lacks details on error handling, pagination behavior for the limit parameter, or what happens when a CI sys_id is invalid. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 concise and well-structured, with two brief paragraphs. The first paragraph states purpose and use cases, the second provides param guidance. No extraneous content.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params), the description adequately covers use, required param, and optional filters. It partially explains the output (returns relationships) but doesn't detail pagination or error responses. Nearly complete.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds value by explaining the source of ci_sys_id (from cmdb_ci) and providing examples for relation_type. This enhances understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 retrieves direct relationships of a CMDB CI, specifying directional options (upstream, downstream, both). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'traverse_cmdb_graph' by focusing on direct relationships, and mentions specific use cases (impact analysis, dependency mapping).

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 indicates when to use the tool (impact analysis, dependency mapping) and provides the required parameter (ci_sys_id) along with optional filters. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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