impact_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real trait: traversal is bounded at max depth 5. It does not state that the analysis is read-only, that traversal is directional (importers of the file, not imports by it), or whether results are language/parser-dependent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the depth cap is attached inline rather than in a separate clause. There is arguably room to spend one more short clause on the direction of traversal without hurting readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there is only one parameter. For a read-only single-argument analysis tool, the description plus structured fields cover what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does add something: the sole argument is described as 'the changed file', telling the agent it should pass the modified file rather than an arbitrary path. It says nothing about path format, workspace-relative vs absolute, or whether the file must exist.

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 verb and resource — finding files that transitively import a given file — which is far more precise than the bare name 'impact_analysis'. It is clearly distinguishable from search_codebase or dead_code_detection, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_dependency_chain, which is the obvious neighbor.

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 phrase 'the changed file' strongly implies the intended context (assessing blast radius after an edit), so usage is inferable rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get_dependency_chain.

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