strata_validation_scope

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral context. It indicates the operation is an analysis ('determine') and names the result categories (impacted_views, impacted_explores, impacted_fields), which is useful. However, it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, input-validity behavior, or performance characteristics.

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 and includes key output terms in parentheses. It is compact and easy to scan; additional structure could improve readability, but it is efficiently written.

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?

Given the ambiguous one-parameter schema and a large sibling set, the description is too thin. It omits input grammar, typical usage flow, and any relationship to validation or impact-analysis alternatives. The output schema covers return shape, but operational context remains missing.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'changed' parameter, but it only says 'changes'. It does not clarify whether elements are file paths, field names, or arbitrary objects, nor the difference between the string and object forms. The agent is left to guess the expected input format.

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 'determine' and names the resource ('blast radius for changes') plus expected outputs (impacted views, explores, fields). The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like strata_impact or strata_find_field beyond those output labels.

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 only usage signal is 'for changes', implying it should be used when assessing change impact. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent cannot tell when to choose this over strata_impact or strata_explore_deps.

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