Get impacted TNLs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe for reading. The description adds behavioral nuance: repo-wide units are always included. This is a helpful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states the core filtering logic, second sentence adds a critical behavioral rule. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 is read-only (no side effects), has a single well-documented parameter, and no output schema (no need to explain return values), the description is complete enough. Could optionally mention that paths are relative or absolute, but not critical.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema adequately documents the 'paths' parameter (code paths to edit). The description adds context about overlapping and repo-wide units but does not elaborate on parameter format or constraints 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and resource 'TNL units', clearly stating the filtering condition ('paths overlap') and the special case of repo-wide units. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like 'retrieve_tnl' (fetch by ID) and 'trace' (follow paths).

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 states the condition for returning units (overlapping paths) and adds context about repo-wide units, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'paths' parameter description gives a hint about editing intent, but does not contrast with alternatives like 'trace' or 'retrieve_tnl'.

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