getChangeImpact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is a safe read operation. Description adds that it returns diagnostics and reference counts, but does not disclose potential performance implications, limits, or whether it triggers analysis. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, highly concise. Every word earns its place, starting with the key concept 'Blast radius' for immediate understanding. No unnecessary information.

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?

The description lacks detail on output format (e.g., structure of diagnostics, counts) and does not explain how to interpret 'blast radius'. With no output schema, the description should provide more context. Also, given many similar sibling tools, it does not help the agent decide when to invoke this over others.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it does not explain how 'changedSymbols' relate to the output. Baseline 3 is correct when schema is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes 'blast radius' after editing a file, providing diagnostics and reference counts for changed symbols. It uses specific verbs and resources, making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like findReferences or getDependencyTree.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., findReferences, getDependencyTree). Missing context such as prerequisites (file must be saved?) or after-edit timing. Agent must infer usage from description alone.

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