get_blast_radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context (it reports both directions of impact), but says nothing about graph traversal depth, result size, or whether the dependency data is live or cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that defines the two outputs in the order an agent would reason about them, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the answer contains (affected callers, dependencies) and implies no mutation. It is nearly sufficient, missing only a note on identifier format or result granularity.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone leaves `service` undefined. The description implies it is the service whose impact is being analyzed via the phrase 'if `service` misbehaves', but never states the expected identifier form or namespace, so it only partially compensates.

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 analysis resource and scopes it precisely into two directional components: upstream callers (who is affected) and downstream dependencies (what it depends on). This lets an agent distinguish it from trace_dependency_path, though it never names or contrasts 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 description is purely definitional; it never says when to reach for this tool versus trace_dependency_path, query_graph, or get_service_health, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. that it is an incident-triage step). Usage can only be inferred from the sibling set.

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