impact_analysis

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: walks import graph backwards, lists direct and transitive importers, flags high-risk hubs. However, does not mention potential performance implications for large graphs or that it is read-only.

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?

Description is very concise and well-structured. Opens with a question to engage, then explains functionality, usage recommendation, and parameter details. Every sentence is meaningful with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists (not shown but context indicates true), description covers inputs and behavior adequately. With 3 optional parameters and no annotations, it explains the tool's purpose and inputs well. Could mention that it is read-only or safe to run.

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 description adds significant value. It explains each parameter: target (module/file, default returns highest-impact modules), path (repo root), language (auto, python, js/ts). Provides examples and clarifies behavior when omitted.

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 it walks import graph backwards to list importers and blast radius, and flags high-risk hubs. It is specific about the action (impact analysis) and resource (target module). Distinguishes from sibling tools like dependency_graph by focusing on backward analysis and change impact.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before editing/refactoring a module.' Also mentions that omitting target returns highest-impact modules. Provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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