n3mo_get_blast_radius

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 does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, performance considerations, or side effects. Terms like 'impact analysis' imply a computation with potential complexity, but no behavioral details are given.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. There is no unnecessary information, and it reads clearly. Slightly more structure (e.g., listing what the tool retrieves) could improve it, but it is largely effective.

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 complexity of blast radius analysis and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a graph, list of affected symbols), how the depth parameter affects results, or any prerequisites. Sibling tools suggest a suite, but this description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand the tool's full functionality.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (symbol_name, depth, project_path). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'class or function', which aligns with symbol_name. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already describes parameters well.

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 clearly states the tool queries 'impact analysis / blast radius' of a code symbol, specifically class or function. It uses a specific verb 'Query' and resource 'impact analysis / blast radius', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dependency or file symbol queries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., n3mo_get_dependencies or n3mo_search_symbol). There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or examples. The description only states the tool's function without context for appropriate usage.

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