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

The description discloses a notable behavioral trait: there is deliberately no risk score, and it explains the rationale (previous thresholds were unverifiable). It also clarifies that the tool returns counts and paths for the caller to judge. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it does so well, though it could mention performance or side effects (e.g., whether it traverses the entire graph).

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then a deliberate non-feature, then parameter details, then return format. Every sentence earns its place, and the return dict is listed compactly.

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 (graph traversal, transitive analysis, path facts) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to invoke it, and what it intentionally omits. An agent has enough context to select and call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains target accepts a graph node id, wiki page name, file path, or function fqn, and depth is the number of hops to traverse. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types. It doesn't detail depth's exact range or default behavior beyond 'default 2', but that's a minor gap.

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 computes the blast radius of changing a target in the key's workspace, listing specific outputs like direct callers/callees, affected files, tests, transitive dependency set, and example paths. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_graph or query, which are more general graph or search tools.

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 before editing code to see what a change ripples into,' giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains what the tool deliberately does not do (no risk score) and why, which helps an agent decide whether to rely on it for impact analysis versus other tools.

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