impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool 'retourne' (returns) a report, implying a read-only analysis, and enumerates the exact result categories. A brief explicit 'read-only' statement or mention of analysis limitations would make it stronger.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear label, a relatable usage question, and a concise list of outputs. Every part contributes to understanding the tool without redundant wording.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the invocation trigger and the three categories of returned information. It does not elaborate on the risk-score scale or exact response structure, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 already documents the only parameter, filePath, with a clear description of 'absolute or relative to the project' — giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description merely references 'this file' in the usage example and adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific function — impact analysis — and frames it with a concrete scenario: 'I modify this file, what breaks?' It also lists three distinct outputs (affected files, affected API routes, risk score), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like status, search, and dependencies.

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 embedded question 'je modifie ce fichier, qu'est-ce qui casse ?' clearly communicates when to use the tool: before modifying a file to understand potential breakage. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as dependencies or graph, so it lacks the exclusion criteria needed for a 5.

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