impact_neighbors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states what the tool does without mentioning any side effects, permissions needed, or input constraints (e.g., file format expectations). This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs analysis on the codebase.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain what 'blast radius' means, how 'depth' and 'limit' affect results, or what format the output takes. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.

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 0% description coverage for its parameters, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The parameters 'depth' and 'limit' have defaults but no semantic meaning is provided, leaving the agent uninformed about how to adjust these values for different use cases.

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: 'Get likely architectural blast radius from symbol/file.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('architectural blast radius') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'architecture_summary' or 'boundary_edges' which focus on different aspects of architecture analysis.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify when 'impact_neighbors' is preferred over 'high_coupling_seams' or 'behavioral_twins'.

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