warpline_impact_radius_get

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

With no annotations, the description partially fills the behavioral transparency gap by mentioning 'mandatory completeness+staleness' and the 'NO_SNAPSHOT' mode. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, destructive effects, and other behavioral traits that would be critical for safe invocation.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness, as significant details about parameters and usage are omitted. It earns points for conciseness but loses some for lack of 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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter interactions, required inputs beyond 'repo', output format, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged to reduce the description burden.

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%, but the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which are insufficient for complex parameters like 'changed_refs' (array of objects) and 'filters' (object). The description fails to clarify parameter roles or interactions.

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 retrieves 'downstream affected entities from stored dated snapshots', indicating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool by mentioning 'mandatory completeness+staleness' and the 'NO_SNAPSHOT' option, which hints at a unique behavior compared to siblings like 'blast_radius' or 'changed'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., blast_radius, changed, timeline). It does not mention scenarios, alternatives, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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