get_change_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the function without disclosing behavioral aspects such as whether it is read-only, performance implications, required permissions, or handling of large dependency graphs. This is insufficient for an analysis 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 a single short sentence that is concise and free of waste. However, it is perhaps too brief and could benefit from slightly more detail without harming conciseness.

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 complexity of impact analysis and the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns (e.g., list of symbols, count, severity). The current description leaves the agent guessing about the output format and additional behavior.

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 80%, and the description adds context by naming 'direct + transitive dependents', which loosely maps to max_direct and max_transitive parameters. However, it does not add meaningful new details beyond the schema, so 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?

The description 'Impact analysis: direct + transitive dependents of a symbol' clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing the impact of a symbol by finding its direct and transitive dependents. It uses specific terminology and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_dependents' and 'find_impacted_test_files'.

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 does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks mention of alternatives or context in which this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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