successors

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 usefully discloses how results are derived – multi-hop over PR reviews and modules that change together – which helps the agent interpret output confidence. But it says nothing about read-only semantics, tenant scoping effects on results, or performance characteristics.

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?

Front-loads the core question before the mechanism, then usage examples. Three compact sentences with no filler, though the parenthetical '(or one module)' is slightly awkward.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of guidance. It covers the use case well but is thin on parameter meaning and result semantics, leaving an agent to guess at tenant scoping and result cardinality.

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?

With 4 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It hints at 'person' and 'module' via 'a person's modules (or one module)', but leaves 'limit' and 'tenant' completely unexplained, which is significant given multi-tenancy appears to be a real concern.

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 analytical question – identifying successors who could take over a person's modules – and clarifies the mechanism (PR reviewers, co-changing adjacent modules). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like who_knows and keystones via the 'multi-hop' framing, though it never names them outright.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases: 'who can step in for X' and 'who should we pair with X', which map cleanly to agent intents. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer when the question is simpler (e.g. who_knows for pure knowledge lookup).

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