get_blast_radius

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety; the description adds the key behavioral trait that this tool follows a dependency chain and reports reach by repository, package, depth, and relation kind. It does not, however, disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or how confidence and edge kinds are applied—details that would matter for a graph-query 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?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler, and the main idea is front-loaded. The second sentence about grep earns its place by clarifying the tool's transitive nature, even though the phrasing is terse.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the tool has a large optional parameter set, no schema descriptions, and no output schema. The description does not explain which identifier parameter to use, how pagination works, what response_format values are accepted, or what the returned blast radius looks like, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 14 parameters, the description must compensate, but it only hints at repository, depth, relation kind, and symbol identity. Parameters such as cursor, max_nodes, confidence, include_derived, stable_key, and response_format receive no guidance, leaving the agent to guess their meaning or required combinations.

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 conveys the tool's purpose even without an explicit verb: it shows what a change to a symbol reaches across repositories, packages, depth, and relation kinds. This distinguishes it from ordinary reference lookup, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as trace_dependencies or find_cross_repo_consumers.

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 'Grep does not follow a chain' implies the tool should be used when transitive dependency traversal is needed, rather than simple text search. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance against sibling tools like find_cross_repo_consumers or trace_dependencies, leaving the choice largely to inference.

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