strata_impact

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral signal. 'Get' conveys a read-only operation, and the parenthetical indicates the scope of returned entities, but the description doesn't disclose recursion depth, cost, or any special conditions beyond those.

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?

One short sentence front-loads the verb and object, with the parenthetical adding detail at the end. There is no fluff or repeated schema 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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, so the basic call shape is inferable. However, missing parameter format details and lack of sibling routing leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how and when to call it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation, but it only repeats 'physical_table' without clarifying how to format or qualify it. The parenthetical uses 'physical_table' again in the output list, which can create ambiguity about what the parameter identifies.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('downstream impact of a physical table'), and the parenthetical enumerates the affected entity types. This distinguishes it from siblings like strata_view_sources and strata_explore_deps, which cover narrower or different dependency questions.

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 the tool should be used when downstream impact is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not distinguish itself from sibling dependency tools or explain when one of those would be preferable.

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