impact_analysis

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 conveys that the tool computes transitive callers, but says nothing about traversal direction, depth limits, result format, performance, or how max_depth affects the blast radius.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the core concept is immediately visible. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important operational details unstated.

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?

For a graph-traversal tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain max_depth, result shape, or how transitive callers are ordered or bounded, leaving the agent to infer critical invocation details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies the symbol being analyzed but never explains symbol_id's expected form, and it completely omits max_depth and its default/meaning.

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 states a specific resource and scope: transitive callers, explicitly glossed as 'blast radius' and 'what may break if it changes.' This is clear enough to distinguish it conceptually from direct-caller tools, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like find_callers or find_references.

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 phrase 'what may break if it changes' implies the use case is impact assessment rather than simple reference lookup. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over find_callers, find_references, or other graph tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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