CodeGraph: codegraph_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic context that this is an analysis of hypothetical changes rather than a mutation, which aligns with the annotations. It does not contradict them, but it also does not disclose much behavioral detail beyond what the annotations and schema already convey.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is immediate. Every word earns its place, making this a model of concise tool documentation.

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 rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what it lists, what triggers its use, and its temporal context. The remaining gap is not explicitly distinguishing it from directly related sibling tools like codegraph_callers or codegraph_explore, though 'affected by changing' largely does this implicitly.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description only mentions <symbol> and does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List symbols affected by changing <symbol>.' This clearly identifies the tool as impact analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like codegraph_callers or codegraph_callees that answer different relationship questions. The phrase 'before a refactor' further anchors its purpose.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use before a refactor.' It tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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