get_section_blast_radius

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states read-only, explains the algorithm (BFS traversal, classification, return fields), and quantifies output (blast_score in [0,1]). No mention of auth or rate limits, but the behavioral characteristics are well-disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then algorithmic detail, then sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains return structure (direct_impact, transitive_impact, summary, blast_score). Algorithm and parameters are covered. Slightly missing explicit description of 'repo' format, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces max_depth default and explains traversal, adding context. However, the 'repo' parameter lacks description in both schema and description, missing an opportunity to fully clarify its role.

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 calculates transitive impact of rewriting a section, explains the algorithm (walks inbound reference graph, classifies hits), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_backlinks (depth 1 only). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 differentiates from get_backlinks (depth 1 only), providing clear context for choosing this tool. It also notes it is read-only. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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