get_section_blast_radius

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real context by describing the traversal (BFS over inbound references to max_depth, default 3), the classification of hits (anchor/doc/tutorial), and the returned artifacts (direct_impact, transitive_impact, summary, normalised blast_score in [0,1]). It stops short of stating cost/performance characteristics of a deep traversal.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by mechanism, then return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (direct_impact, transitive_impact, summary, blast_score range). Combined with the readOnly annotation and a well-documented input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only traversal cost/limits are 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 67%, and the schema itself already documents max_depth's default and the section_id format/ambiguity behavior in detail. The description's mention of max_depth (default 3) largely repeats the schema, adding little new meaning beyond framing it as BFS depth over the inbound graph. Baseline 3 for a schema that carries most of the semantic load.

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 names a specific operation (transitive impact of rewriting/restructuring a section) and the mechanism (walking the inbound reference graph). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_backlinks, which is depth 1 only, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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 clearly frames usage by contrasting with get_backlinks ('Companion to get_backlinks (which is depth 1 only)'), implying this is the multi-depth option. However, it never states when NOT to use it or what other sibling tools (e.g. check_section_delete_safe, get_section_diff) cover, so there is no explicit exclusion guidance.

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