impacto

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial value beyond that: reverse traversal semantics, a 6-hop limit, default precision level (EXTRACTED only), and a crucial caveat that static dependencies are not guaranteed breakages. This is rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose question, followed by concise, information-dense sentences. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds distinct guidance.

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 an output schema present, return-value details need not be fully described, yet the description still notes the file:line evidence format. Combined with rich behavioral and usage context, it is nearly complete, though the missing explanation of 'tokens' and the depth mapping leaves a small gap.

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. It clarifies the 'alvo' syntax and the effect of the 'incluir_inferidas' parameter, and implies a depth limit via 'até 6 saltos.' However, it never mentions the 'tokens' parameter, and the relationship between the 'profundidade' parameter (default 3) and the 6-hop limit is ambiguous.

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 analytical purpose (who is affected by a change) and specifies the traversal direction (reverse) and mechanisms (calls/imports/inheritance). It distinguishes itself from general graph traversal siblings by focusing on reverse impact, but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'relacionados' or 'caminho'.

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 gives clear context for use: reverse dependency analysis up to 6 hops. It also provides parameter usage guidance (use arquivo::Classe.metodo for disambiguation; default to EXTRACTED, add INFERRED for hypotheses). No explicit when-not or alternative tool routing.

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