get_section_blast_radius

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

The description reveals detailed behavior: BFS traversal, configurable max_depth, classification of hits (anchor/doc/tutorial), and a normalized blast_score. The read-only behavior matches annotations (readOnlyHint=true), and no contradictions are present. The description adds significant behavioral context 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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the tool's core action and details the graph walk, outputs, and relation to sibling tools. Every sentence adds value.

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 complex graph-walking tool, the description covers the purpose, mechanism, and return fields. Without an output schema, it adequately lists common return values. Minor gaps include error handling or performance notes, but overall complete for an expert agent.

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?

The input schema already describes max_depth (default 3) and section_id format. The description adds no additional meaning for the repo parameter and only restates existing info. With 67% schema coverage, the description does not significantly improve parameter understanding.

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 the tool computes the transitive impact of rewriting a section by walking the inbound reference graph. It lists specific outputs (direct_impact, transitive_impact, summary, blast_score) and differentiates from sibling get_backlinks (depth 1 only), giving a precise purpose.

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 mentions when to use this tool over its companion get_backlinks (depth 1 only) and notes it is read-only. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives.

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