impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: two directions (downstream/upstream), depth control, output modes (table/prose), and a budget parameter. It discloses the grouping by tier, which goes beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Blast radius analysis'), and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides enough context for an agent to understand its usage. It covers the key aspects: fan-out from multiple nodes, direction, depth, output format, and budget.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the purpose of the 'nodes' parameter (comma-separated for diffs) but adds minimal new semantic value 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 clearly defines the tool as 'blast radius analysis' fanning out from nodes to see downstream/upstream impact, grouped by tier. It distinguishes from siblings like 'neighbours' (immediate) and 'trace' (path) by focusing on broader dependency analysis.

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 provides clear context: use for assessing impact of nodes, with the hint to pass comma-separated nodes for a diff. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the usage is well implied.

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