impact_of_change

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the analysis is structural and limited to Python, JavaScript and TypeScript, and critically that matches are name-based so results may include false positives flagged in 'same-name notes'. Those precision caveats are exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before trusting the output.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome the agent cares about, then the usage trigger, then the caveat. Every clause carries information: scope, languages, matching caveat, and the test follow-up.

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?

With a full input schema and an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape; it instead spends its space on language coverage, matching limitations, and pre-edit workflow — the pieces not covered by structured fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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% and each parameter (path, repo, depth, symbol) already carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra syntax or format guidance for depth levels or repo scoping, which is the expected baseline when the schema is fully documented.

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 opens with a specific question the tool answers ('What breaks if a symbol changes') and enumerates the exact result classes: direct users, transitive users, and involved tests. That verb-plus-resource framing makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings such as search, ask_codebase, or explain_history.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger ('Use this before editing a shared function') and a follow-up action ('run or update the tests it lists'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g. when to prefer search or explain_history instead).

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