align_get_impact

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the useful scope detail that both upstream and downstream directions are returned; it says nothing about traversal depth, whether impact is direct or transitive, or any limits, which would be the valuable additions for a read-only analysis tool.

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?

One short sentence with the key scope term ('upstream and downstream') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is serviceable, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be described. However, 'impact' is left undefined – direct vs transitive, depth, and whether the two directions are combined or separable – which leaves real ambiguity about results.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains decision_id. The description confirms the analysis is anchored on that decision but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema – standard baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('upstream and downstream impact of a decision'), and the directional scope (upstream/downstream) sets it apart from siblings like align_get_related_decisions or align_get_conflicts. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from those neighbors, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named, even though align_get_related_decisions and align_get_conflicts are conceptually adjacent. The agent must infer that this tool answers 'what does this decision affect' from the noun 'impact' alone.

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