impact_of_change

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that (it detects requirement text edits and deleted functions, and reports invalidated reviews), but says nothing about defaults, scope, or cost despite the two documented defaults in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the output content appended. The parenthetical about base_ref is well placed, though the second sentence slightly overlaps the first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is orientation: no guidance on when this beats trace_matrix or coverage_report, and no note on the effect of the uncommitted-changes flag, for a tool that is clearly a multi-input repository analysis.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies base_ref as 'a git ref' and pins the comparison window ('since base_ref'), which is genuine added value, but include_uncommitted is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, and the HEAD default is not addressed.

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 specific analysis verb and its object: requirements and tests affected by changes since a git ref, including text edits and deleted functions. It is concrete and unambiguous on its own, but it never names or distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as trace_matrix or coverage_report.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'Lists tests to re-run and reviews that the change invalidates' signals this is a post-change impact analysis. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., must be run in a repo), and no routing to or away from the sibling analysis tools.

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