reef_diff_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description reinforces this by stating it reads existing state and does not refresh or mutate, adding clarity about what it does not do. This goes beyond annotations by specifying the exact data sources (working_tree_overlay facts, import graph state).

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then adding behavioral notes. Every sentence adds unique value without unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and structured.

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 the description covers the high-level purpose and behavioral traits, it lacks details about the input parameters and the exact format of the return value (though an output schema exists). For a tool with 8 parameters, this is a significant gap, making it only minimally complete.

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 has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter meanings. For a complex tool with many parameters, the description should provide context for parameters like projectId, depth, or freshnessPolicy, but it does not.

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 purpose: to return affected import callers, findings, and conventions for changed working-tree files. It uses specific verbs ('return') and resources ('import callers', 'caller findings', 'conventions'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like imports_impact and cross_search by focusing on mid-edit impact analysis.

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 usage for changed working-tree files during mid-edit, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No alternative tools are mentioned, though the context suggests it is for impact analysis without mutation.

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