get_impact_radius

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (analyzes, identifies) without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, performance characteristics, or error handling for missing node_id. This is insufficient for a tool that likely queries dependencies.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key action ('analyze impact within a specific radius') is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds clarifying detail. Ideal length and structure.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could elaborate on how depth affects the radius or whether the search is recursive. The description is minimally complete but leaves some nuance ambiguous.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; 'within a specific radius' hints at the depth parameter but does not clarify its semantics or default behavior beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing impact within a radius by identifying components depending on a specified node. It differentiates from siblings like 'find_path' (path between two nodes) and 'impact_analysis' (broader scope), though it could more explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'change_impact_preview'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a limited scope radius is appropriate. It only vaguely mentions 'for AI reasoning', which does not help the agent decide context.

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