get_impact_sliceTraverse observed caller/callee edges from a symbol to build a token-budgeted candidate impact slice, not a complete blast radius.
Traverse observed caller/callee edges from a symbol. Candidate impact slice, not complete blast radius.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| repo_id | Yes | ||
| direction | No | both | |
| max_nodes | No | ||
| symbol_id | Yes | ||
| max_tokens | No | ||
| min_confidence | No | ||
| filter_ambiguous | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / filter_ambiguousAdded value: +{
+ "default": true,
+ "title": "Filter Ambiguous",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / min_confidenceAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Min Confidence"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that edges are 'observed' and the result is a 'candidate impact slice, not complete blast radius,' but omits permissions, return behavior, and limits for its 9 parameters.
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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The scope caveat is placed immediately after the core action, making the description easy to scan.
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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It gives the core purpose and a scope caveat but leaves parameter behavior and invocation guidance almost entirely undocumented.
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% for 9 parameters, and the description adds no meaning beyond 'from a symbol' and 'caller/callee edges.' It does not explain depth, profile, max_nodes, max_tokens, min_confidence, or filter_ambiguous.
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 action: traverse observed caller/callee edges from a symbol. The added caveat 'Candidate impact slice, not complete blast radius' clarifies scope, though it does not name sibling alternatives like get_module_dependents.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The caveat 'not complete blast radius' hints at a limitation but does not route the agent to another tool or condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.