gp_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the computed outputs and scope (depth up to 3), but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. It mentions replacing a grep command, implying safety, but direct side-effect disclosure is missing.

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 well-structured: start with purpose, then when to use, then special case, then exclusion. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns (direct callers, transitive callers, affected tests, export status) and how parameters like 'since' affect results. It covers the key aspects for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining default depth (3), the purpose of 'since' for PR review, and path resolution strategy. This context enriches understanding beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: 'Compute the blast radius of a rename or signature change'. It lists specific outputs (direct callers, transitive callers up to depth 3, affected tests, export status) and distinguishes it from sibling gp_callers by stating it is not for direct callers only.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS call before proposing a rename, signature change, or behavior change' and 'Do NOT use just to see direct callers; use gp_callers for that.' Also includes a special case for the 'since' parameter to scope to changed files, ideal for PR review.

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