codapult_guard_impactExplains the project impact of changed files via dependency graphs, routes, capabilities, and contracts to assess architectural risk before merging.
Explain the project impact of one or more changed files using the discovered dependency graph, routes, capabilities, and contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Project path or workspace root. | |
| files | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is read-only or mutating, whether it requires a prior codapult_guard_init/discovery pass, whether it touches the filesystem, or what the response contains. For an analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a significant gap.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It earns its space, though brevity here comes partly at the cost of the missing usage and behavioral information rather than from efficiency alone.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a required parameter undocumented in both schema and description, the definition is under-specified. An agent cannot tell what 'impact' looks like in the response — affected routes, capabilities, contracts? — or whether this is a safe repeated call.
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 50%: 'root' is documented in the schema but the required 'files' array has no description at all. The description mentions 'one or more changed files' but does not say whether paths are absolute, repo-relative, or workspace-relative to root — the one ambiguity an agent would most need resolved.
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?
States a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('project impact of changed files'), and enumerates the evidence sources it draws on (dependency graph, routes, capabilities, contracts). This is clearly distinct from siblings like init or proposal_decide, though it does not distinguish itself from codapult_guard_analyze or codapult_guard_check, which likely occupy adjacent territory.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named despite 13 sibling tools in the same guard family. The phrase 'using the discovered dependency graph' hints that discovery/init must have run first, but this prerequisite is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.