Impact Analysis

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. It only says 'Analyze' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output will be. This is a critical gap for a tool that could be expected to report on resource modifications.

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 brief (one sentence) but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structural detail such as context, prerequisites, or examples. While it is front-loaded with the main action, it omits essential information an agent needs, making it inadequately sized.

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 two parameters, a required resource_arn, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'impact' entails, what information the output will contain, or any usage constraints. The description is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter explanations. The description adds zero information about resource_arn or region, leaving the agent to guess what values are expected. It completely fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a clear action ('Analyze the impact') and a specific resource scope ('modifying or deleting a resource'). It is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_operation or map_dependencies. Still, it avoids tautology and is unambiguous.

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. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or refer to related tools. The usage context is entirely implied, leaving the agent to infer when impact analysis is appropriate.

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