magento_impact_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool combines DI XML tracing with PHP source analysis and maps cross-module dependencies. This gives insight into the operational behavior, though it does not mention auth needs or rate limits.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence immediately conveys the core action and scope, and the second adds methodological detail. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool has one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does and how, but does not describe the output format, which would be helpful for completeness.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'className' parameter. The description adds value by specifying that the parameter can be a full or partial name and provides concrete examples, enhancing the schema's plain string type description.

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 that the tool analyzes the impact of changing a PHP class by finding all files that reference it via use statements, DI configuration, instantiation, and type hints. It specifies the resource (PHP class) and action (analyze impact), distinguishing it from sibling tools like magento_find_class or magento_trace_dependency.

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: when you need to understand the impact of changing a class. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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