impact_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns elements with usage relationships, but does not clarify depth (direct vs. transitive), whether the given element is included, the meaning of 'use' (e.g., references, calls, type dependencies), or any side effects. This minimal behavioral information is insufficient for a potentially complex analysis tool.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action. There is zero redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise, though this conciseness comes at the cost of critical detail.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the semantics of 'impact' – whether it includes transitive dependencies, directionality, or types of usage. Given the tool's name and the breadth of sibling tools, this description is too sparse for an agent to confidently select and call it correctly. It needs more context about the analysis scope and expected results.

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 must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It refers to 'the given element' but does not explain the format, scope, or expected identifier (e.g., UUID, path, qualified name). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema's 'string' type implies, leaving the agent to guess how to construct the element_id.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('elements that use or are used by the given element'). It distinguishes itself from common siblings like get_relationships or list_children by focusing on dependency/usage, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear and specific enough for an agent to infer its core 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_relationships, walk_tree, or search. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be preferable. The description provides no usage context.

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