get_blast_radius

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Behavior: read-only, no side effects.' Also explains resource resolution and output bucketing, adding behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide.

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 a single paragraph with front-loaded core purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Efficient use of words.

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 complexity (blast radius), a single parameter, and no output schema, the description covers logic, resource resolution, ownership bucketing, host handling, error behavior, and related tools. Complete and well-rounded.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the resource parameter 'Accepts the canonical id, exact name, or unique substring,' which is not in the schema.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Given a resource, return who else fails if its underlying host(s) fail.' It distinguishes from siblings by naming related tools like get_topology and get_service_health.

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?

Explicitly states 'When to use: cross-cutting RCA — when several services degrade together and you suspect a shared host.' It also says 'Works for any RUNS_ON relationship,' providing clear context but not explicitly stating when not to use.

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