mdan_graph_impact

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it covers both upstream dependencies and downstream impact, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose return format, depth of traversal, or whether it includes indirect relationships.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's efficient and free of fluff, though it could add a brief usage hint without becoming bloated.

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 read-only analysis tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no mention of what the result looks like (e.g., list of nodes, graph structure), an agent may not know what to expect. The readOnlyHint covers safety, but the behavioral output is unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100% (nodeId is described as 'Node ID to analyze'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds the context that the node is an 'artifact' in the context graph, which slightly enriches meaning but doesn't add format or syntax details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('analyze' implied by 'impact') and resource ('artifact in the context graph'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like mdan_graph_visualize (visualization vs impact analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 implies usage for analyzing dependencies and impact, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like mdan_trace or mdan_graph_stale. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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