get_token_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint, so the 'Side effects: None (strictly read-only)' line is largely redundant. Beyond that, the description adds genuine behavioral context about the shape of the result — per-usage file:line locations and enclosing composables — which the annotations do not cover.

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 labeled sections make it scannable and front-loaded, but there is waste: the closing line 'Use this BEFORE changing a token to understand the impact' repeats the 'When to use' bullet verbatim in substance, and 'Side effects: None' restates the annotations. Trimming those two items would make the definition tighter.

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 two-parameter read-only analysis tool with an output schema already present, the definition covers purpose, timing, exclusions, parameter examples, and result contents, so an agent can invoke it correctly without guessing. The 'Returns: JSON with full impact analysis' line adds nothing beyond the output schema, but the overall coverage is complete.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it gives concrete example values for token_name ('welcomeCardHeight' or 'Primary') and clarifies that project_path is an optional explicit project root. That said, it does not explain token_name semantics such as whether it accepts a key, a display name, or a dotted 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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Get impact analysis for a specific token') and enumerates exactly what the analysis contains (file:line usages, enclosing @Composable, total affected UI elements). It is clearly distinct from data-mutation siblings like set_token or rollback_last, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 explicit 'When to use' ('Call BEFORE modifying or deleting a token') and 'When NOT to use' sections, plus a restated precondition. The agent knows exactly when this tool is the right choice and when to skip it.

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