Diff impact analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's addition of 'reverse import graph' provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications, output format, or any limitations beyond what annotations already convey.

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 consists of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists the supported input methods.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format or behavior. It does not describe what kind of list or graph is returned. Additionally, with 5 optional parameters, guidance on combining them is missing, leaving the agent uncertain about valid configurations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds a little value by grouping the 'source' parameter's enum values, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or formats beyond the schema descriptions.

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 finds files depending on changed paths using reverse import graph, which is a specific and unique capability. It distinguishes from siblings that focus on bug reports, pipelines, or general queries, though 'get_blast_radius' may be similar but is not directly mentioned.

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 lists supported input methods (manual paths, last push, GitHub compare, fix PR files) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_blast_radius', which likely performs a similar impact analysis. No exclusions or preferred contexts are provided.

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