dna_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Predict" hints at a read-only analysis rather than a mutation, but it does not state permissions, whether the operation is safe, what happens if the target is invalid, or what the output represents.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps captured in other dimensions.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter meaning, usage context, and behavioral details that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters, and the description never names or explains "target" or "project." The phrase "changing a component" loosely gestures at target, but project is entirely unaddressed, leaving both parameters semantically undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ("Predict") and resource ("blast radius of changing a component"), so the agent can tell it performs impact analysis rather than mapping or planning. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like dna_map or dna_plan, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion conditions. The only implicit signal is that it is for assessing change impact, which is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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