nexus_impact_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds the method (reverse reachability) and scope (dependency/call graph), giving more insight into tool behavior without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two crisp sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every word adds value.

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?

Description covers both purpose and method. With annotations and schema, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though output format is not specified.

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 documents target and mode with 50% coverage. Description connects 'symbol or file' to the mode parameter, adding meaning to the enum values. It also clarifies that target can be either a symbol name or file path.

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's function: identify the blast radius of editing a symbol or file. It uses specific terms like 'reverse reachability' and 'dependency/call graph' that distinguish it from sibling tools such as references or call graph.

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?

Provides clear context: use when evaluating the impact of an edit. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to employ the tool.

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