get_impact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the traversal semantics (transitive, up to max_depth hops, incoming edges) and that results include knowledge references. However, it omits the depth cap of 4 (only in the schema) and says nothing about truncation, cost of a deep traversal, or the effect of the undocumented limit parameter.

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 tight sentences with the core output description front-loaded and the usage trigger second; no filler, and both ideas earn their place.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must frame the return payload; it does so conceptually (dependents plus referencing knowledge). It is slightly incomplete on result shape, depth-cap truncation, and the mystery 'limit' parameter for a 4-parameter analysis 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 coverage is 75% and the description adds real meaning to max_depth ('dependency hops to traverse'), which the schema only partially captures. But the 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the exact resource (transitive dependents of an entity) and the concrete edge types traversed (incoming calls/imports/extends), plus a second payload (knowledge referencing it). The word 'transitive' implicitly separates it from the direct-caller sibling get_callers.

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?

'Use before renaming, deleting, or changing a signature' gives an explicit triggering context for the tool. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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