Change Impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds value by specifying the return shape {changed, stale, where_used, ok} and the semantic distinction between immediate stale consumers and the full transitive blast radius. The 'before a change is committed' phrasing reinforces that this is a non-mutating analysis. 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?

The tool's purpose is front-loaded and the structure is logical (overview, parameters, returns). However, the cryptic 'issue #142, C3' and repeated §9 spec references add noise and may confuse an agent without the surrounding document, making the description less self-contained than it could be.

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 there is no output schema, the description properly documents return values. It also covers both parameters and the pre-commit usage context. For a read-only report tool this is largely complete, though concrete examples or a note about the item id format would round it out.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'lockfile' is defined as the path to the §9 dependency graph, and 'changed' is defined as a list of changed item/component ids from an ECO's affected set. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types, though the element type of the 'changed' array is not specified.

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 produces a where-used impact report for a set of changed items over a lockfile graph, with the verb 'surfaces' and specific resource. It identifies the output as an item-level impact report before commit, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'where_used' tool.

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 clear usage context: it is for a set of changed items (an ECO's affected set) and intended to be run BEFORE a change is committed. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the pre-commit framing gives useful selection guidance.

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