impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that traversal is exhaustive, that ALL edge types are considered, and provides a negative guarantee about files not listed. This adds meaningful context about the tool's behavior and scope, though it could mention potential performance or output size implications.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by scope, output, usage, and a key guarantee. Each of the five sentences adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential points: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a completeness guarantee. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact input format or result details, but it is largely complete for its 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 schema only defines 'name' as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by implying that 'name' refers to the symbol being changed (e.g., 'changing a symbol' and 'the target'). While not explicitly stating 'the name parameter is the symbol', the context makes it clear, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: computing the blast radius of changing a symbol, with specific behavior (exhaustive traversal of ALL edge types) and output (every affected file with symbols to check). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, node, path, and local_files, which are not about impact analysis.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use before refactoring') and includes a useful note about what files are not listed ('Files not listed do not depend on the target'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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