qa_probe_get_blast_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It only states the read-like operation (find out how many routes break) but does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, potential side effects, or return format details. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and gives an example. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the output (e.g., returns a count or list), which would help the agent set expectations. Still, it is adequate for the use case.

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 single parameter 'endpoint' is described in the schema with a default description, but the tool description adds value by showing an example ('GET /alerts') and indicating format (e.g., 'Backend endpoint key'). This goes beyond the schema, making it easier for the agent to construct valid inputs.

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's purpose: to find the number of frontend routes that would break if a backend endpoint goes down. It uses a specific verb ('Find out') and resource ('blast radius'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like qa_probe_explain_failure.

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?

Provides an example query ('What pages break if GET /alerts goes down?') to illustrate usage context. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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