rank_suspects

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real substance: it explains the downstream dependency walk, the blended signals, and that it also returns the top suspect's runbooks and past incidents with fixes. It doesn't state latency or result-size bounds, keeping it short of a 5.

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, both load-bearing, with the core mechanism and the bonus return values front-loaded in a logical order. No 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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably sketches what comes back (ranked suspects, runbooks, past incidents and fixes), but it leaves both input parameters unexplained and gives no hint of ranking scale or output shape, which is thin for a tool whose whole value is its ranked result.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and drops it. 'symptom_service' is only loosely inferable from 'symptom', and window_minutes (default 60) is never explained as bounding the change-recency lookback.

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 verb (rank), resource (root-cause suspects), and the mechanism (dependency-graph walk combining live health, recent changes, centrality). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_blast_radius or find_similar_incidents, which do not rank suspects.

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 implies a triage/root-cause investigation context but never states when to reach for this over get_blast_radius, trace_dependency_path, or find_similar_incidents, nor any prerequisite input condition. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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