get_blast_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the algorithm ('Uses BFS on the dependency graph'), output components ('severity assessment, impacted files by depth, and edges'), and a behavioral trait ('No API call needed'). This is highly transparent and adds significant value beyond what annotations could provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values (severity, impacted files, edges). It also includes prerequisite and algorithm. For a 2-param tool, this is nearly complete; minor gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage (both parameters described). The description does not add new semantic information about the parameters; it only mentions depth indirectly via BFS. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting and description adds minimal additional meaning.

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's purpose: analyzing blast radius of file changes, finding directly/transitively affected files. It uses specific verbs ('Analyze', 'find') and resource ('file changes'). The tool is well-distinguished from siblings like get_dependencies or get_dependents by focusing on transitive impact and severity assessment.

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?

Explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires a prior reindex'), which guides when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives among siblings, but the context implies it for full impact analysis. A clear usage condition is provided.

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