analyze_change_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the analytical mechanism and the kinds of results produced (direct dependents, transitive impact, tests, risk assessment). However, it doesn't state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor does it note limitations of static import-graph analysis (e.g., dynamic imports or runtime-only dependencies), which matter for trusting the prediction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence, followed by a compact mechanism summary. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but overall it is tight and well-structured.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with an output schema (which covers return values), the description supplies enough: purpose, mechanism, and the path constraint. The main remaining gap is sibling routing and analysis limitations, but the essentials are present.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'path: File path relative to project root' adds the critical relative-to-root constraint absent from the schema. This meaningfully closes the gap for the one required param.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it predicts breakage from a file change, and it names the mechanism (import graph, direct dependents, transitive impact, related tests). It is clearly distinguishable in substance from siblings like get_file_relations or find_dependency_path, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 purpose ('if you change a file'), with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Related siblings such as get_file_relations and search_with_dependencies are not referenced as alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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