analyze_change_impact

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the combined behavior from find_references and find_callers, and outlines the scope of analysis (files, projects, call sites). It does not disclose performance or limitations, but for a read-only analysis tool this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences, each essential and front-loaded. The first states the main purpose, the second explains composition, and the third gives usage context. No wasted words.

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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It defines purpose, scope, and usage. A minor gap is that it does not describe the return format, but the phrase 'shows every file, project, and call site affected' implies the output scope. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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% with a parameter description that explains the expected format. The tool description adds no additional semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 states the tool analyzes the blast radius of changing a symbol, showing affected files, projects, and call sites. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_references by noting it combines multiple tools into a single impact summary.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use before renaming, changing signatures, or removing a type/method.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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