get_problem_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content scope — it discloses that the result spans root cause, entities, and impact dimensions (users, services, apps) — which is meaningful because there is no output schema. But it says nothing about cost, depth, traversal limits, or whether impact analysis is computed or pre-aggregated.

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 short fragment with zero padding, and the content itself is front-loaded. But its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline — there is not even a grammatical sentence stating the action, so the terseness is a deficit, not an asset.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description does the important work of listing the return contents (root cause, affected/impacted entities, impact analysis). For a single-param read correlated with get_problem and get_problem_evidence, however, it omits the routing guidance an agent needs to pick this tool over its close siblings.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage (including the P-12345 display-id example), the schema fully documents problem_id and the description need add nothing. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it neither helps nor harms; baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (problem impact) and enumerates its contents — root cause, affected/impacted entities, impact analysis across users, services, and apps. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never actually states what the tool does (retrieve? compute? summarize?). An agent can infer the scope but not the action, and it is not differentiated from get_problem_evidence or investigate_problem.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this versus the many related siblings (get_problem, get_problem_evidence, investigate_problem, list_problems). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention that a problem_id is required. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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