jambavan_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'analyze' by specifying exactly what it reports (bounded transitive callers, test associations/references, explicit graph incompleteness) and flags a dependency on jambavan_index. This gives the agent a good sense of expected behavior, though it stops short of detailing side effects or output format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the key information easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description does a good job of summarizing the tool's return focus (callers, tests, incompleteness) and prerequisites. It could be more explicit about output format or error behavior when jambavan_index hasn't been run, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add much parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, though the term 'changed symbols' aligns with the base and include_worktree parameters. It doesn't introduce new semantic value.

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 a specific verb ('Analyze') with a defined resource ('changed symbols against inbound extracted graph edges and test associations/references'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing its unique outputs: bounded transitive callers, test associations/references, and explicit graph incompleteness.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use ('before a risky refactor or PR review') and a prerequisite ('call jambavan_index first'). It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough to be actionable.

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