get_change_impact

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

No annotations, so description carries burden. It mentions outputs but not whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or how risk classification works. Adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key features, 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?

Given output schema exists and complexity, the description covers main functionality. Could mention that it's a read-only analysis or expected output format for completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The tool description adds context using 'symbol' and 'git diff' to explain the two modes, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 analyzes impact of a change via symbol or git diff, with specific outputs (direct/transitive callers, risk, affected tests), distinguishing it from siblings like get_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?

Implies use for change impact analysis but does not specify when not to use it or compare to similar tools like get_blast_radius or analyze_dataflow.

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