get_token_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful output content (file:line sites, enclosing composable, count of affected elements) which implies a safe read-only operation, but it never states that it is non-mutating, whether it requires the project to be indexed/synced, or any latency/scope limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then grouped into short labeled blocks (Shows / Use this / Args / Returns) with no filler. Every line contributes something an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. The main remaining gap is the absence of behavioral/permission context, but for a low-risk read-only analysis tool it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives concrete value examples for token_name ('welcomeCardHeight' or 'Primary') and clarifies that project_path is an optional explicit path to the project root, which meaningfully clarifies both parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get impact analysis for a specific token') and enumerates the three things it reports (usage sites, enclosing @Composable, total affected UI elements). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling token tools such as find_token_by_color or list_tokens.

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?

'Use this BEFORE changing a token to understand the impact' gives an explicit temporal/decision context for calling it, which is strong for a read analysis tool. However, it names no alternative (e.g., when to use get_token_siblings or list_tokens instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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