impact

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool traverses hops and groups results by tier, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or has side effects. The description adds some behavioral context beyond schema but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core concept. No redundant or unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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 description covers purpose, direction, and grouping by tier. With an output schema available, the lack of return value details is acceptable. Minor gap: does not mention that depth controls breadth, but depth is described in the schema.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds context about the overall analysis but does not add novel meaning to the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Blast radius analysis' and explains that it fans out to see downstream or upstream effects grouped by tier. The verb 'fan out' and resource 'node' are specific. It distinguishes from likely siblings like 'neighbours' which might be single-hop, as 'impact' implies multi-hop traversal with depth.

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 indicates when to use (fan out analysis) but does not explicitly say when not to use or how it differs from alternatives like 'neighbours' or 'trace'. The context of multi-hop analysis is implied but not contrasted with single-hop tools.

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