impact

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the return shape — affected scenarios with feature and connecting step text, plus step-definition and feature counts — which is useful. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe matching nuances, but the language strongly implies a non-mutating analysis tool.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the tool's purpose and then specify what is returned. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the result payload and the kinds of targets. It could add an example or an edge case note, but the essential information for invoking it correctly is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description maps the target types to the schema enum and clarifies the purpose of the value parameter, but it adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's function: computing the blast radius of a change by listing affected test scenarios. It names the entity types (class, method, step definition, endpoint) and differentiates itself from sibling search/list tools by focusing on impact rather than generic lookup.

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 the tool: when you need to understand which scenarios are affected by a change. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_scenarios or resolve_step for different lookup needs.

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