aisdlc_blast_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides none: no indication of whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether it mutates state, or what it returns. The alias relationship is identity metadata, not behavioral transparency.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, with no wasted wording. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.

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?

The alias relationship gives enough context to redirect to the canonical sibling, but the definition is otherwise incomplete for a callable tool. With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the operation, parameters, and expected behavior but does not.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for either repo_path or target_file. An agent must infer from parameter names alone what these inputs should contain.

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 only states that this is a legacy alias for localvibecode_blast_radius. It does not say what the tool actually does, what a blast radius means here, or what operation is performed. Naming the sibling helps identify the relationship, but the purpose remains largely unexplained.

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?

Calling it a "legacy alias" implicitly signals that the canonical localvibecode_blast_radius should be preferred, which is some routing guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this alias, when not to use it, or what deprecation behavior to expect.

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