archy_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that unresolved files are returned in 'unresolved' and defines 'propagation_cost'. It implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose side effects or permissions, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

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 concise at 3 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It efficiently adds detail about unresolved files and propagation_cost. Minor room for improvement in structuring parameter info.

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 the tool has 2 required parameters and an output schema, the description partially covers usage and output. It explains the output fields but leaves the 'path' parameter unexplained. With sibling tools and no annotations, it is moderately complete but has a clear gap.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly describes 'files' as 'changed file paths', but 'path' is not explained. The description fails to clarify what 'path' represents, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 action: 'return the internal modules that transitively import any of them (the blast radius).' It specifies the verb 'return' and the resource 'blast radius', distinguishing it from sibling tools like archy_diff or archy_check.

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 says 'Use before refactoring or removing a module to see what would break.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it's slightly less than perfect.

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