Blast radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds value by explaining the traversal origin ('from the report node') and the exact return shape ('{ nodes: [{ id, label, type }], edges }'), which is especially useful since there is no output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states purpose and return format, the second provides usage timing and alternatives. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, intended usage, and alternates. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect in the result.

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 schema covers nodeId as 'Graph node UUID', so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by indicating the traversal starts from a report node, which clarifies what kind of UUID should be supplied. This is a useful supplement to the schema, though it does not give detailed instructions on locating the nodeId.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('other components/pages a bug group touches'), and clarifies the mechanism ('knowledge-graph traversal from the report node'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_knowledge_graph and analyze_codebase_impact as alternatives.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use before dispatch_fix to scope a change safely.' It also names alternatives with their distinguishing conditions: get_knowledge_graph for arbitrary seeds and analyze_codebase_impact for file-level import impact. This gives an agent clear decision criteria.

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