mimry_impact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does add real context: depth defaults to 3, is bounded to 1-5, and changed=True switches the comparison baseline to the working tree against HEAD. However it does not say whether this is a read-only analysis, how expensive it is, or what the traversal returns beyond an output schema it never mentions.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the parenthetical follows immediately with target resolution rules. It is compact and every clause carries parameter or behavioral information, with only light parenthetical nesting reducing readability.

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 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description supplies resolution semantics, depth bounds, and the changed-mode alternative. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but root remains entirely undefined and the relationship to sibling analysis tools is unaddressed.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, and it covers target (symbol vs file path), file/line disambiguation when several symbols share a name, changed, and depth bounds. Only root goes undocumented, which is a minor gap against five well-explained parameters.

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 concrete verb-like framing ("What a change touches") and enumerates the exact outputs: callers, importers and tests to run. That is specific enough to separate it from mimry_related or mimry_why, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

It explains how to invoke it (target as symbol or file path, changed=True to use working tree vs HEAD) but never states when this tool is preferable to mimry_why, mimry_related, or mimry_preflight. Usage is implied by the input-shape explanation rather than stated as guidance.

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