whats_connected_to

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes what is reported (dependents, blast radius, dependencies) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or safe. The nature of 'impact analysis' suggests no side effects, but it's not explicit.

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-loading the purpose and listing what is reported. No redundant 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, return values need not be explained. However, the description does not detail the output structure or provide examples. The overall context is adequate for understanding the tool's function.

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 the 'service_id' parameter through context ('if service_id fails'), but the 'graph_path' parameter (with default) is not mentioned or explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have covered both parameters.

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: impact analysis for service failure, listing direct dependents, transitive blast radius, and dependencies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kg_path or kg_render.

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 usage for failure impact analysis, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an AI to decide.

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