impact_preview

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds one meaningful behavior (higher-precedence shielding) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, error behavior (e.g., variable not found), or what the output is (e.g., list of affected items). This is a clear gap, but the precedence detail provides partial transparency.

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 entire description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the verb 'Predicts' and packs in the core purpose plus a behavioral nuance. There is no redundant phrasing or filler—every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity (impact prediction across environments with precedence), the description omits critical context: it does not explain how parameters like 'files' and 'projectRoot' influence behavior, nor what the return value looks like. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call without additional inference.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate for poorly documented parameters like 'files', 'variable', and 'projectRoot'. It only indirectly references 'file' and 'variable' and does not clarify the purpose of 'files' (plural) or why 'projectRoot' is needed. This fails to add meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Predicts') and identifies the exact resource (environments/services/workloads affected by a variable change). It also adds a distinguishing nuance about precedence shielding, which differentiates it from siblings like resolve_variable or trace_variable without naming them.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or situations where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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