ctxray_blast_radius

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the analytical scope (both directions of dependency), but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires a built index or prior ctxray_init_rules run, how deep the traversal goes, or what the result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states scope immediately, with no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word 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?

For a two-parameter analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what but omits the preconditions and result interpretation an agent would want. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, but not sufficient to call it confidently without opening other tools first.

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 both 'path' and 'target' are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Analyze') and a precise resource ('upstream and downstream dependency blast radius of modifying a specific file or module'). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from a repo map or skeleton dump, though it never names or contrasts a sibling tool such as ctxray_trace.

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 phrase 'of modifying a specific file or module' hints at the scenario (impact assessment before a change), but there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus ctxray_trace or ctxray_forensics, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., must the repo be indexed first?).

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