relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses default depth and limit, and mentions clamping from the schema. It describes the nature of results (neighbourhood with signatures). But it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or data handling. The output schema covers return structure, so the description adds moderate context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter guidance, then usage hint. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists and the description covers input, defaults, and a disambiguation example, it is complete for a tool of moderate complexity. The description provides all necessary context for effective use.

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 50%, with depth and limit already documented. The description compensates by adding meaning for 'symbol' (accepts node id or name) and 'file' (disambiguation for matching names). This provides practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'A symbol's neighbourhood in one call: who calls it, what it calls, what implements/subclasses it, and non-call references — each with its signature', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by claiming 'THE tool for impact analysis and 'what implements X'', clearly differentiating from info and search.

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 when-to-use guidance (impact analysis, 'what implements X') and explains when to use the file parameter for disambiguation when names match. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like info or search.

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