analyze_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions outputs like affected files, line numbers, and certainty rankings, which gives some insight. However, it doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires prior setup, or any side effects. It's adequate but not rich.

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 concise, comprising two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then list the key outputs. There is no fluff or redundancy. It could be slightly more compact but is appropriately sized.

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 tool has 9 parameters, all optional, and no output schema. The description lists the types of results (affected files, line numbers, etc.), which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or the safety profile (read-only vs. side effects). Given the complexity, it's complete enough for basic usage but leaves some gaps.

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 all 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline rule, this scores a 3.

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 function: comparing detected documentation/API changes against workspace files and identifying affected files, line numbers, snippets, patterns, and certainty rankings. It uses a specific verb and resource, avoiding tautology. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like diff_docs, which might also compare changes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies when to use it (when you have changes and want to know their impact on workspace files) but doesn't explicitly state alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings. There's no guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to diff_docs or get_implementation_context.

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