pce_impact

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly frames the tool as an analysis step 'before making the change' and discloses its output behavior, which strongly implies it does not perform the modification itself. However, it never explicitly states whether it is strictly read-only or whether it has side effects such as caching or workspace state changes, leaving a small transparency gap.

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 organized into short labeled sections — Purpose, When to use, Best practice, Avoid — and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and outputs before giving procedural guidance, and it avoids redundant filler.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete: it explains purpose, outputs, invocation best practices, and exclusions. It even routes ambiguous cases to the correct sibling tool, pce_query, which gives an agent everything needed to invoke pce_impact 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that target should be explicit, that file can speed up resolution, and by recommending concrete change-framing examples like 'modify field X' or 'change function signature of Y'. It does not add much beyond the schema for change_type, but the extra guidance is meaningful.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('analyzing the impact boundary of a known change target') and enumerates concrete outputs: direct call sites, direct consumers, main propagation chains, risks, and suggested modification order. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming pce_query as the discovery tool, so an agent can distinguish impact analysis from query/search.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('already know which symbol, field, interface contract, or file to change') and explicit avoid-conditions ('target is still ambiguous... use pce_query first'). It also clarifies that impact is unnecessary for viewing local implementations, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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