analyze_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the operation is analytical/non-mutating and clarifies the traversal is transitive, but says nothing about cost, latency, how the depth cap is honored, or the shape of the result set — gaps that remain unaddressed by either annotations or an output schema.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler: the identity of the result is front-loaded, then the timing advice. Every word earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with no destructive behavior, the description covers what the tool produces and when to reach for it. It is slightly thin on what the returned caller list looks like, though with no output schema the omission is minor.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The word 'transitive' loosely hints at the meaning of depth, but the description adds no format, default, or range detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

It names a specific resource and scope — 'transitive callers of a symbol' — and labels the concept ('the blast radius'), which implicitly separates it from siblings like find_references or who_imports that return non-transitive results. An agent can tell what it gets back without opening the schema.

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?

'Run BEFORE changing a signature or behavior' gives a concrete trigger condition that maps to a real workflow moment. It does not, however, name an alternative (e.g. find_references for direct callers) or state when this tool is unnecessary, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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