reef_impact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying 'query' and listing return types (callers, findings, conventions). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences that convey the essential purpose and relationship to a sibling tool without any waste.

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?

Provides high-level purpose and output types, but with 8 parameters and no parameter details in the description or schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly. An output schema exists but is not described.

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%, yet the description provides no information about any of the 8 parameters. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving agents without guidance on parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('query'), resource ('impact of changed files'), and the outputs ('affected import callers, invalidated findings, and convention risks'). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'reef_diff_impact' by noting equivalence with a smaller name.

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?

Explicitly mentions equivalent calculation to reef_diff_impact, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not elaborate on when to prefer this tool over other siblings or any prerequisites.

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