blast_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes beliefs and determines re-verification, invalidation, and risk level. However, it does not state whether it has side effects (e.g., modifying anything) or any other behavioral traits beyond what is described.

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 relatively concise, with the main purpose front-loaded. It uses two paragraphs and a structured args section. Some redundancy (e.g., 'Analyze the blast radius' repeated in first line and second paragraph), but overall efficient.

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 that there is an output schema (not shown but present), the description need not explain return values. It covers the inputs, outputs, and process adequately for a single-parameter tool with moderate complexity.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'changed_files' is a 'Comma-separated list of changed file paths', adding meaning beyond the schema's mere 'string' type. This is adequate for a single-parameter tool.

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's purpose: 'Analyze the blast radius of file changes on existing beliefs.' It specifies the input (list of changed files) and outputs (beliefs needing re-verification, invalidation, risk level), making it distinct from siblings.

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 explains the input format and what the tool does, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other analysis tools like verify_beliefs). It implies usage when files change, but lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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