engi_impact_analyze

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, permissions required, side effects, or return format. The brief description implies analysis but leaves ambiguity.

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 5-word sentence, which is too terse for a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail and structure, making it under-specified.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the output looks like, what 'transitive document impact' means, or any behavior beyond the bare verb. It is incomplete for an agent to effectively use the tool.

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 only 25% (only root has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter explanations. It fails to clarify what 'changed_ids', 'depth', or 'change_description' mean, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly populate them.

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?

Description clearly states the specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'transitive document impact for changed IDs', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like engi_graph_query that may analyze graph relationships but not specifically transitive impact for changed IDs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as engi_graph_query. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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