impact_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does explain that it follows reverse edges (callers, users, dependents, subclasses, mirroring schemas, tables → models) and that each impacted route includes a 'via' chain. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how max_depth affects results, or any performance implications, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 fairly concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add detail on traversal and symbol format. The opening question is slightly informal but efficient. No filler is present, and the structure is logical.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and symbol parameter but omits details on max_depth (e.g., how depth limits traversal), project_root (e.g., what it refers to), and the overall output structure (beyond the via chain). An agent would need to infer too much to use this 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'symbol' parameter thoroughly, giving examples of accepted forms (e.g., 'User', 'get_db', 'users', 'app.models.user:User'). However, it says nothing about 'max_depth' or 'project_root', leaving those parameters underspecified. The description covers only one of three parameters, which is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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: analyzing what is affected if a symbol changes, listing categories like routes, handlers, dependencies, schemas, and ORM models. It also mentions following reverse edges, which distinguishes it from forward-traversal tools like graph_neighbors. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it misses the full differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 implies the use case (change impact analysis) and references graph_neighbors for symbol format, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like find_references or get_dependencies. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so agents might not know when to choose it.

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