get_impact_radius

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden yet only discloses what is traversed (direct and transitive callers, importers, tests). It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires an indexed graph, or any cost/latency characteristics.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the core concept front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented behavior, but as raw structure it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and the tool is simple (one required param). However, the depth parameter's semantics and any usage routing are left entirely to inference, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning. 'Changing a symbol' loosely hints that target is a symbol, but the crucial depth parameter controlling traversal extent is entirely undocumented in schema and 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?

States a specific analysis verb and resource ('blast radius of changing a symbol') and enumerates the result categories (direct and transitive callers, importers, tests). It is distinctly identifiable from siblings like query_graph or find_dead_code, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the concept of 'blast radius'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to any sibling tool. An agent must infer that this is for pre-change impact assessment.

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