get_change_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that results include transitive dependents, but says nothing about result shape, depth caps, or symbol-name resolution.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; the scoping fact (direct + transitive) comes first. It is arguably undersized for a five-parameter tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 read-only analysis tool with annotations covering safety and 80% schema coverage, the minimum is met, but with no output schema the agent gets no hint about return format, result volume, or how to identify the symbol by name. Those gaps leave it merely adequate.

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%, so the schema documents project, max_direct, max_transitive and max_total_chars; the description adds no parameter meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the required 'name' parameter's expected format (qualified name vs path) is undocumented anywhere.

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 resource ('symbol') and analysis type ('direct + transitive dependents'), which is enough to separate it from the sibling get_dependents (direct-only) and get_call_chain. It is clear but terse, and does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Impact analysis' implies the pre-change workflow (assess blast radius before editing), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like get_dependents or find_impacted_test_files. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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