Analyze change impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: long-tail results are offloaded to a 'brain:// resource'. That is useful beyond the annotations, but it is cryptic — it never says how to retrieve that resource or when truncation kicks in.

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?

Eleven words in one semicolon-joined sentence with no padding, and the primary output content is front-loaded before the resource-offload caveat. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description must explain what comes back and how to invoke it; 'affected components and risks' is the only glimpse of the return shape. Nothing addresses repo_path, output structure, or size expectations beyond the passing brain:// remark.

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 0% across both parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It loosely maps 'a change' to change_request but offers no format, source, or content expectations, and repo_path is never mentioned at all despite being relevant to how the analysis is scoped.

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 fragment 'Affected components and risks for a change' names the resource (impact findings) and the trigger (a change), which separates it from the record_* and prepare_* siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never actually states what the tool does (compute, analyze, return) — the agent must infer the action from the tool name.

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 when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as review_diff or search_code, which are the plausible siblings an agent might confuse this with. The only guidance is an implicit input hint ('for a change'), with nothing telling the agent when this analysis is warranted.

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