codegraph_impact

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

Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context about transitive scope and optional file-based definition selection, but it does not disclose depth semantics, traversal direction, or how much of the graph is considered.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the core purpose is stated before the optional qualifier.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description gives the core idea but omits enough detail to confidently invoke it correctly. Missing pieces include clear differentiation from callers/callees, definition of depth behavior, and what the returned impact information looks like.

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 descriptions cover file and projectPath, while symbol and depth are undocumented. The description partially compensates by explaining that the file parameter can select a definition for the symbol, but it leaves symbol syntax and depth behavior implicit. This is adequate but not complete.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Analyze the transitive impact radius of a symbol.' It also adds a distinguishing qualifier, 'optionally selecting its definition by file.' However, 'impact radius' is not formally defined, so it could still be confused with codegraph_callers/callees.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like codegraph_callers, codegraph_callees, or codegraph_explore. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or exclusions. The file parameter's schema description gives some related context but does not recommend a tool choice.

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