Identify affected project nodes and potential risks before making changes by analyzing dependencies in the knowledge graph.
Given a planned change, return affected nodes and risks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path to be changed | |
| change | Yes | Description of the planned change |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, whether it requires any prerequisites, or how risks are determined. The one-sentence description is functionally informative but behaviorally thin.
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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the input-to-output structure is immediately clear.
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?
The description gives a high-level understanding of the output, but without an output schema it does not specify the structure of affected nodes or risks, nor does it address edge cases or sibling-tool boundaries. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity in real usage.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both path and change adequately. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, and no parameter details are missing, so a 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 clearly states the tool analyzes a planned change and returns affected nodes and risks, which is a specific enough verb-resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from graph_get_side_effects, which could plausibly overlap, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like graph_get_side_effects or graph_query_context. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and output description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.