ctx_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it specifies the report structure, the shape of impact lists, error behavior for missing targets, the indexed-project prerequisite, and depth semantics. No contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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?

Dense but structured: purpose first, output shape second, invocation constraints third. Every clause contributes necessary information for selecting and calling the tool.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description enumerates all report fields and list item shapes, explains unknown imports, and covers error and precondition behavior. An agent has enough to invoke the tool and interpret its result 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the one-of exclusivity, symbol/path meanings, and depth default/range without adding genuinely new semantic information beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: analyze the blast radius of changing a symbol or file. The ImpactReport output and pre-modification use case make it identifiable against sibling tools like ctx_dependencies or ctx_dependents.

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 instructs to use the tool before modifying code to estimate what else must be checked or updated. It does not mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the use context is clear enough for an agent.

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