analyze_impact

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

The description indicates the tool is an analyzer (likely read-only) and describes the output (impact report with affected files, risk level, Mermaid diagram). However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Without annotations, more behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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, with a clear one-line purpose and structured Args/Returns sections. The hyperbolic phrase 'PROJENİN KALBİ' does not add functional value but does not detract significantly. Every element serves a purpose, and it is well-organized.

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 existence of an output schema, the description's mention of report contents is appropriate. All parameters are explained, and the tool's core function is clear. However, it lacks context about dependencies on other tools (e.g., whether the project must be scanned first) or how the output schema complements the description.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description's Args section provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters, including an enumeration of change_type values. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though some details (e.g., path format) are absent.

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 analyzes the impact of a change, specifying what resources are involved (path, file, symbol). However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like what_if_delete and what_if_rename, which could be alternatives for specific change types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description only explains what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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