analyze_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analyzing impact but doesn't specify what the analysis entails (e.g., computational cost, side effects, permissions required, or output format). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of impact analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'blast radius' entails, the nature of the analysis, or what results to expect, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'node_id' documented as 'ID or name of the node to analyze'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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: 'Analyzes the impact (blast radius) of changing a specific node.' It specifies the verb ('analyzes') and resource ('impact of changing a specific node'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_logic_path' (which might retrieve paths rather than analyze 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tool 'get_logic_path'. It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios where this analysis is needed, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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