find_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the traversal direction and edge types, which is useful, but it does not mention how cycles are handled, whether the input node itself is included in results, or performance implications for deep traversals. This is partially transparent but leaves several corner cases unaddressed.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief algorithm note, and a clear Args/Returns section. Every sentence provides relevant information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, algorithm, parameters, and return shape, and an output schema exists to detail exact return values. Minor gaps such as cycle handling, self-inclusion, and explicit when-to-use guidance prevent a perfect score, but overall it is complete for a query 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section is essential and does add meaningful context. It explains node_id, max_depth (including default and max), and project by name. However, project is only described as 'Project name' without elaborating on its filtering role, and max_depth's behavior at bounds is unspecified, so it is not fully thorough.

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: blast radius analysis to find all nodes affected by a change. It specifies the traversal semantics (following incoming imports, calls, extends, and implements edges in reverse), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_call_chain or find_path.

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 usage for impact analysis via 'Blast radius analysis', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No direct comparison to sibling tools is given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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