Analyze change impact before modifying code to identify blast radius, affected callers, and risk rating. Prevent unexpected breakage with clear risk assessment.
Alias for analyze_change_impact. Analyzes blast radius, affected callers, and risk rating before modifying code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Name of the class, method, or component to evaluate. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool analyzes rather than modifies and names the analysis dimensions, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what output shape to expect, or any permission/performance considerations.
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 two sentences with no filler. The alias relationship is front-loaded and the functional behavior is stated immediately, making it easy to parse.
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 one-parameter analysis tool, the description gives the core purpose and context, but because there is no output schema, it should more explicitly describe what the returned analysis contains or how risk rating is represented. This leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to use 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already defines target as the class, method, or component to evaluate. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('analyzes') and resource ('change impact') and enumerates concrete outputs: blast radius, affected callers, and risk rating. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as wincode_find_references or wincode_plan_refactoring, and the alias note explains its relation to analyze_change_impact.
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 phrase 'before modifying code' gives an explicit temporal use case. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or direct the agent to an alternative beyond the alias equivalence, but the context is clear enough for selecting this analysis tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.