inspect_blast_radius

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool outputs (regression points, dependents, broken tests) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, whether it runs tests, requires special permissions, or has performance implications. It gives an outcome but no process or side-effect details, which is a moderate gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key outputs with zero filler. Every clause adds information about what the tool does, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

For a tool that analyzes blast radius, the description fails to mention the return format or structure (e.g., lists, counts, path groupings) despite having no output schema. It also omits any preconditions (e.g., repository must be initialized) or costs. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, this is a notable completeness gap, though the core purpose is covered.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond referencing the 'targeted file change', which aligns with targetFile. It neither enriches nor contradicts the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'identifies' and specifies the resource: a targeted file change. It enumerates concrete outcomes (regression points, direct/transitive dependents, broken test suites), which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling analyze_diff_impact, so it's clear but not fully distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings analyze_diff_impact or get_repo_structure. The description implies a use case (inspecting impact of a file change) but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions. The agent is left to infer when this is the right tool.

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