impact_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates analysis of proposed changes, suggesting read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state whether it modifies data, required permissions, or whether it is safe to run. Lacks details on side effects or risk level.

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 with a concise list of analysis aspects. Every word serves a purpose; the [ARCHITECT tier] tag adds context. No wasted words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does but omits output format or return value. It lists what it analyzes but does not specify how results are presented (e.g., risk score as number, report). Adequate but could be more 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable.

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 purpose: analyzing blast radius of schema changes. It lists specific aspects (FK dependencies, affected views, row count, risk score) and distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_table or describe_schema by focusing on impact analysis of proposed changes.

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 description implies use for schema change impact analysis but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_table, describe_schema). No exclusions or context-specific recommendations are given.

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