impact_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral disclosure adds limited value. It mentions the combined analysis nature and the prerequisite, but doesn't detail potential errors or output structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, a prerequisite line, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the purpose and components it combines. It could hint at the output format (e.g., report structure) but is otherwise complete for a read-only analysis tool.

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 descriptive field descriptions. The description provides an example but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the boolean flags interact. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'blast radius of changes' and lists the components it combines (reverse call graph, inheritance dependents, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_call_graph or get_inheritance by being a composite analysis, but could be more explicit about its unique value.

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 provides a prerequisite (index_repository must be called first) and an example, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. its many sibling tools. It implies use before making changes but doesn't state scenarios where individual tools might suffice.

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