marm_graph_impact

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (graph impact response or error) and describes an error condition (graph-unavailable). It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the context implies analysis without mutation.

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 concise: five sentences with no wasted words. First line gives high-level purpose, followed by parameter guidance, then return value. Well-structured.

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, the description adequately covers return types and error conditions. All four parameters are explained with context. No gaps remain for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: project (auto-resolve), since (git ref/date, optional), base_branch (default 'main'), depth (range 1-5, default 2).

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 states a specific verb-resource pairing ('Blast radius of code changes: git diff → affected symbols + risk') and distinguishes this tool from sibling graph tools (e.g., marm_graph_architecture, marm_graph_trace) by focusing on impact propagation from git diffs.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use 'since' vs 'base_branch' and explains default behavior. However, it does not explicitly tell when to choose this tool over sibling tools like marm_graph_trace or marm_graph_architecture.

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