codebase_impact

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

With no annotations, the description discloses polymorphic behavior based on target format and that it lists files/functions that could break. It doesn't detail output format but provides adequate transparency for the tool's behavior.

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?

Three sentences with clear structure: purpose, polymorphic behavior, usage recommendation. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Comprehensive for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations. Covers when to use, how target works, and key behavior. Could mention output format, but not essential.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining polymorphic nature of 'target' (path-like vs. name-like). Schema already describes each parameter, so this provides useful clarification.

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: 'return the BLAST RADIUS for a file or symbol' and lists what it returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings like codebase_symbol and codebase_context by focusing on impact analysis for refactoring.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this BEFORE refactoring, renaming, or deleting code', providing clear when-to-use guidance. While it doesn't mention when not to use, the context is sufficient for selection among sibling tools.

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