Trace the blast radius of a node or bug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It goes far beyond the basics by explaining that impact does not always flow with the arrow, that traversal is over current live structure only, and that results are a list to check, not a proven failure set. It also documents the coverage.startsWithoutConnections edge case.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded. It starts with the core purpose, then details directions, returns, and caveats. Every sentence adds essential information—no filler or redundancy.

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's complexity and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the returned fields (reached[], bugs[], coverage), traversal semantics, limitations, and how to interpret empty results. It is self-contained for an agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains direction's effect on edge traversal (e.g., 'dependency edges backward'), the exactly-one rule for node/bug, bug-as-target behavior, and what maxDepth and coverage flags mean. This makes parameter usage much clearer.

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 the action ('Walks the connection graph') and the resource ('edges + apis') with a specific goal ('find which other nodes a problem would reach'). It explicitly labels itself as 'the tool for' impact analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_graph.

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?

It provides explicit use cases ('if this breaks / I change this') and detailed direction semantics. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, but the 'this is the tool' phrasing gives clear context. It also adds a constraint about exactly one start (node or bug) and ground-level bug rejection.

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