impact_analysis

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add semantics — and it does, disclosing that traversal is transitive ('directly or through other files') and directional (importers, not imports). It omits that `max_tokens` can truncate results, which is a behavioral trait an agent should know.

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 sentence with the verb first and the clarifying clause immediately after; zero filler and nothing buried.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does tell the agent it returns a list of files, which suffices for the core contract. It says nothing about truncation when `max_tokens` is hit, behavior on nonexistent paths, or whether output ordering is meaningful, leaving real gaps for a 3-parameter analysis tool.

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 only 33% — `workspace` is documented, but `max_tokens` and its 32000 ceiling are undocumented anywhere. The description's 'given files' maps to `changed_files` but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the files that a change... can affect') and pins the traversal direction as reverse dependencies ('the files that import them'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `dependencies` or `cross_references`, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 phrasing implies usage (assessing blast radius before modifying files), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer `dependencies`, `cross_references`, or `review_change` instead. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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