repo_impact_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates an analysis/read-only operation via the word 'Analyze,' but doesn't disclose how impact is computed, whether the repository is indexed, or any prerequisites. It adds the specific scope (file/symbol) and 'potential impact' framing, which is useful but limited.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler, fluff, or redundant information, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

While parameters are fully specified and the purpose is clear, the description lacks any information about the output format or return value. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left without guidance on what the analysis returns, which is a significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (file and path) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (analyze), the target (potential impact of modifying a specific file or symbol), and the scope (across the codebase). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like repo_analyze_repository or repo_ask_codebase, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to understand the blast radius of a code change—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage context is present but not elaborated.

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