heal_dependency_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: it 'proposes' updates rather than applying them, and scopes to 'all files' calling the modified symbol. However, it does not mention potential risks, permissions, or how the proposals are presented.

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 a single sentence followed by a well-structured argument list. Every word is useful, and the format is clean 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 simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers purpose and parameters. It could slightly improve by explaining what the proposed updates look like or how they are returned, but it is not a significant 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%, but the description fully compensates by defining each parameter with specific meaning (symbol_name: modified function/class; file_path: source file; change_type: type of change) and even gives examples for change_type.

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 'Finds and proposes updates for all files calling a modified symbol,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'apply_sync' (which applies changes) and 'predict_impact' (which predicts impact).

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 a clear use case: when a symbol has been modified, this tool finds and proposes updates for dependent files. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'apply_sync' for applying the proposed updates.

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