impact_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only analysis ('Calculates change risk') and gives a usage warning, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it describe return format or potential side effects. It adds some behavioral context through the listed risk factors but lacks completeness.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately signals the tool's purpose with '(RECOMMENDED BEFORE EDITING)' followed by a concise definition. There is zero waste, and every phrase earns its place.

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?

Despite having 100% schema coverage for parameters, the lack of an output schema means the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a risk score, a report, a list of affected elements). It does not, leaving a significant gap for agents that need to interpret results. The description also omits any details about output structure or how risk is quantified, making it incomplete for a complex risk-analysis tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by linking 'direct/transitive dependents' to the max_depth parameter and indicating that 'change' is the target of risk evaluation. This enriches but does not significantly exceed what the schema already 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 calculates change risk and specifies the dimensions it considers (direct/transitive dependents, persistence, remotes, shared state, ambiguity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_dependencies or generate_change_plan, which serve different purposes.

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 includes '(RECOMMENDED BEFORE EDITING)', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or name alternatives, but the recommendation before editing is a strong trigger. This is clear context with no exclusions, meriting a 4.

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