repomind_impact_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by explaining the tool shows 'directly or indirectly' dependent files, hinting at recursive traversal. However, it does not detail the output format, performance implications, or how depth is handled beyond what the schema already states. This is minimal but non-contradictory.

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, focused sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without any filler or repetition. Every part contributes meaning.

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 simple two-parameter schema and clear purpose, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks an output schema, but the description implies a list of dependent files. It could be slightly more detailed about output format, but overall it is adequate.

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% with both targetPath and depth having descriptions. The description adds 'directly or indirectly' which maps to depth traversal but does not provide substantial additional semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already explains parameters.

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 function: 'Calculates the downstream blast radius (reverse dependents) of modifying a target file or module, showing exactly which files depend on it directly or indirectly.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like repomind_get_dependencies (forward dependencies) by emphasizing reverse dependents.

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 a clear use case: assessing the impact of modifying a file or module. It states the purpose ('if modifying a target file') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance, matching the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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