recommend_successor

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description does not contradict that. It adds context about the ranking criteria but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format or whether it considers all employees. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant information. 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and ranking criteria. It lacks an explicit output format, but the phrase 'score and rank' implies a ranked list, and the tool is relatively simple with two well-documented parameters. This is largely complete.

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%, and both parameters are clearly described (roleId and departingEmployeeId). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 score and rank potential successors for a departing employee based on specific criteria (skill overlap, team proximity, system knowledge, capacity). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_domain_experts or calculate_bus_factor.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to identify the best person to backfill or absorb responsibilities,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the when-to-use guidance is direct and sufficient.

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