whats_affected

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the upstream walk, risk classification, ordering by risk, and auto-detection from git status. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but for a read-only analysis tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 a single dense paragraph that is efficient but could be slightly more structured for readability. It front-loads the key action ('edit→verify glue') and provides all necessary details without 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 (dependency graph, risk classification, paging) and lack of output schema, the description adequately describes the output components (risk per file, overallRisk, ordered routes). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the return value.

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%, and the description adds significant context: auto-detection for the files param, paging for offset and maxItems, and distance cap meaning for maxDistance. It also explains the risk classification and overall risk in the output.

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 tool's purpose: given changed files (or auto-detected from git status), it walks the dependency graph upstream to find affected components/pages, maps to routes, and returns verification targets. It distinguishes from siblings like check_page or render_component by being a planning/discovery tool, not a direct action tool.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Call it after editing to know exactly what to re-check in the browser and how carefully,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context implies it's for post-edit analysis, not for other tasks.

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