syms_impact

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only hints at returning dependents without specifying order, depth limits, side effects, or permissions. The term 'impact analysis' is vague.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 no output schema and the complexity of dependency analysis, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, whether the result is a flat list or a tree, or how it handles cycles. Missing details for an agent to reliably invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (file path and root), which are self-explanatory. The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so 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 states the tool performs impact analysis, specifically focusing on direct and transitive dependents of a file. It distinguishes itself from siblings like syms_dependents and syms_deps, which likely handle direct dependencies only.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over siblings like syms_dependents or syms_deps. The description lacks explicit usage context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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