Surface implicit side effects of a module, including database writes and external calls, to assess potential impact before making changes.
Return implicit side effects of a module (DB writes, external calls, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path (relative to project root) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full weight of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-style operation by saying 'Return', and gives useful examples of what counts as side effects. However, it does not explain how implicit side effects are discovered, whether the operation is fully read-only, or what is excluded from 'implicit'.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the operation and target. The parenthetical examples add concreteness without unnecessary verbosity, making it an ideal length for a simple one-parameter tool.
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?
This is minimally viable for a tool with one simple parameter: an agent knows the required input and broadly what to expect from the output. However, because there is no output schema, the description does not specify the return format, content structure, or edge cases such as missing files or modules without side effects.
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 already provides complete documentation for the single required parameter, path, with a clear description and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Return', and a clear resource, 'implicit side effects of a module', with concrete examples like DB writes and external calls. It is clear enough to convey the core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the conceptually related sibling graph_impact_analysis.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as graph_impact_analysis. The intended context must be inferred solely from the one-line purpose, with no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.