codebase_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (impact analysis), polymorphic behavior (file-mode vs symbol-mode), and depth parameter constraints (default 3, max 10). It does not mention potential performance costs for large depths, but overall it provides adequate transparency for a read-only analysis tool.

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 two sentences plus a brief usage directive. It front-loads the purpose ('Impact Analysis') and delivers polymorphic details efficiently. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return type (files and functions) and the tool's purpose. It covers the key behavioral aspects (modes, depth, usage context). For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, this description is thorough and leaves no major gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with basic descriptions. The description adds critical meaning beyond the schema: it explains how the `target` parameter is polymorphic based on syntax (path-like vs name-like triggers different modes) and that `depth` refers to hops back. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter behavior.

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 it performs impact analysis ('BLAST RADIUS') and distinguishes polymorphic behavior: file-mode for path-like targets and symbol-mode for name-like targets. It specifies the concrete use case: before refactoring, renaming, or deleting code. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from siblings.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use this BEFORE refactoring, renaming, or deleting code to know what depends on it.' It does not mention scenarios where it should not be used or alternatives among sibling tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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