get_blast_radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds: 'Behavior: read-only, no side effects.' It also details resource resolution, host determination via RUNS_ON, bucketing by ownership root, and error handling. This adds substantial context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then provides details on usage, behavior, and related tools. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool has one parameter fully described in schema, rich annotations, and the explanation of output structure (bucketed by ownership root), the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'resource'. The description adds examples and explains resolution behavior (canonical id, exact name, unique substring). Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the added value is moderate but significant.

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: given a resource, return who else fails if its underlying host(s) fail. It specifies the verb 'return', the resource context, and the relationship (RUNS_ON). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 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?

The description includes explicit guidance: 'When to use: cross-cutting RCA — when several services degrade together and you suspect a shared host.' It also explicitly names alternative tools: 'Related: get_topology for the full graph; get_service_health for the per-service verdict on each co-tenant.'

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