analyze_diff_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether it has side effects, or any permission requirements. It only describes the analysis action without behavioral detail, leaving the agent to infer safety and outcomes.

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, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 adequately conveys what the tool does and its input modes, but it lacks details on output format, expected results, limitations, or performance considerations. Given the tool's complexity (AST diff analysis), more context would help an agent know what to expect from the result and how to interpret it. The gap is not severe for a read-style tool, but it is present.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning—it references the diff scope (branches, commits, working tree) which aligns with the parameters but does not enrich the parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific action (analyze modified AST nodes) and outcome (determine affected downstream functions, classes, components), covering the core purpose. It is clear about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools get_repo_structure and inspect_blast_radius, which could potentially overlap in intent.

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 mentions the input modes (between branches, commits, or uncommitted working tree), providing context for when it might apply, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings or any conditions that would make it inappropriate. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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