elenchus_ripple_effect

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool shows affected files/functions but does not disclose whether it modifies state, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. As a read-heavy analysis tool, read-only behavior is implied but not confirmed.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output. No redundant or filler content, earning its place.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for purpose but lacks behavioral transparency and return format details. It covers the main functionality but leaves gaps in operational expectations.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with full description (100% coverage). Description adds minimal value beyond parameter names, mentioning 'specific file' and 'specific function' but not clarifying optionality of changedFunction or any additional constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes ripple effects of code changes, specifying it shows affected files and functions. Verb 'analyze' and resource 'ripple effect' are well-defined, and it distinguishes from sibling tools focused on other operations like session management or convergence.

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?

Description implies usage context: when you want to know impact of a code change. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools like elenchus_get_diff_summary or elenchus_evaluate_severity. No explicit exclusions or recommendations.

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