impact_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about scope limits, how base/head interact, or what the max_chars cap implies for output truncation.

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?

Very short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single fragment is front-loaded with the resource but omits the action and any supporting detail an agent needs.

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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema, and no required inputs mean the description must explain how entity_ids and change_ids combine and what base/head mean. It does not, leaving the agent to infer the tool's behavior entirely from the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description loosely ties entity_ids/change_ids to the operation, but says nothing about base, head, files (deprecated), or max_chars that isn't already in 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?

The fragment 'Every entity a change could affect' identifies the resource (entities impacted by a change) and hints at the analysis operation, but lacks a verb and reads as a sentence fragment. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like trace_data_flow or graph_neighborhood, which could plausibly return similar graph results.

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 names the two input sources ('from entity_ids or change_ids') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus trace_data_flow, find_references, or graph_neighborhood. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions.

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