impact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety and behavior burden. It does disclose 'Read-only', the depth bound, and the default exclusion of type-only edges, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about output shape, truncation semantics implied by max_bytes, or error behavior for paths outside the workspace.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core semantics and the read-only guarantee, with zero filler. It is slightly telegraphic ('What a change affects:'), but nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what the response looks like (file lists, edge counts, truncation indicators) and how max_bytes interacts with depth limits. Adequate to start but leaves real gaps for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including depth defaults and include_type_only. The description only echoes the type-only default and depth concept, adding no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific computation: transitive dependents of changed files, bounded by depth, with type-only edges excluded by default. That is clearly distinct from forward-reachability or test-selection tools, though it never names a sibling such as 'reaches' or 'affected_tests' to make the distinction explicit.

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 phrase 'What a change affects' implies the situation (you have changed files and want upstream blast radius), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like 'affected_tests' for test coverage. Usage must be inferred.

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