predict_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the fallback behavior when no symbol is given (analyzes dependencies on the file itself), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, permission requirements, or what constitutes an 'impact'. It adds some context but leaves significant 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately clarifying the optional symbol behavior. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and the tool's two-mode behavior, the description covers the core functionality adequately. It could be enhanced with explicit safety notes or usage comparisons, but overall it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The description explains that 'symbol' refers to variables, functions, or classes, and describes the behavior when 'symbol' is absent. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this added context is crucial. It lacks format or syntax examples, but meaningfully maps parameters to behaviors, which is more than the schema alone provides.

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 the impact of changing a symbol or, if omitted, the file. It uses a specific verb ('analyzes') and names the resource types (variable, function, class). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like inspect_contract_change, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides implicit usage context by explaining the dual behavior with and without a symbol, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It is implied that this is for change-impact analysis, but no comparison to siblings is given.

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