analyze_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'list', but does not explicitly confirm side-effect freedom, performance implications, or whether any special context is required. Missing details about how the symbol is specified also obscure behavior.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It conveys the core concept efficiently and is easily parsed.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, an empty input schema, and a non-trivial analysis task, this description is far from complete. It lacks information on input format, output structure, potential limitations, and usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 is empty (0 parameters, additionalProperties true), yet the description refers to 'a given symbol' implying an input. The description fails to specify how to supply that symbol, leaving the agent without necessary invocation information. Even though 0 formal params typically get a baseline of 4, the mismatch between description and schema makes this score appropriate.

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 (listing symbols and files) and the resource (reverse dependencies of a given symbol). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling analysis tools like expand_call_graph or detect_cycles, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'reverse dependencies' adds precision.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like symbol_search or graph_diff. The description only states what it does without indicating prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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