woodpecker_get_blast_radius

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the core operation but does not disclose any side effects, limitations, authorization needs, or whether it is read-only. It is safe to assume read-only, but not stated.

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?

Two sentences, first defines the tool's function, second explains the two directions. No redundant words, efficient and front-loaded.

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 complexity of transitive dependency closure, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., list of service names). With no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so description compensates. It adds meaning for the 'direction' parameter (upstream vs downstream) beyond the schema's title and default. However, 'service' is not elaborated beyond its name.

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 it computes transitive dependency closure over DEPENDS_ON edges, distinguishes upstream (blast radius) and downstream (deeper root cause) directions. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like woodpecker_diagnose_root_cause which is a different operation.

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 gives clear context on when to use each direction but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like woodpecker_get_topology or woodpecker_diagnose_root_cause. The implicit guidance is through the blast radius concept.

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