get_change_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It details what the tool does (enumerate, resolve, partition) and what it returns. However, it does not discuss performance, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., LSP running).

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: first defines core action, second lists returns, third provides use case and parameter guidance. Information is front-loaded and relevant.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return structure. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage. Missing are prerequisites (e.g., open workspace) but the sibling context implies LSP environment.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: it explains changed_files as 'specified files' and include_transitive as 'second-order callers.' This provides useful context beyond the schema definition.

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 enumerates the tool's actions: it lists exported symbols, resolves references, and partitions callers into test/non-test. It also specifies return fields, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly suggests 'Use before editing a file to understand blast radius.' It explains the include_transitive parameter but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with siblings like get_references.

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