get_blast_radius

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It reveals the output shape (dependents, covering_tests, high_risk, notes) and the general analysis scope, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, how base/head relate to repository state, or any operational constraints.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses the return block to convey output structure efficiently. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters and usage context. It provides the purpose and return keys but leaves base/head semantics, repo interpretation, and sibling differentiation unaddressed, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it beyond a basic repo argument.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for base, head, or repo. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify that base/head likely represent a comparison range or how repo is used, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('what a feature change affects'), and enumerates the key outputs: dependents, covering tests, and high-risk areas. It is clear enough to distinguish it as blast-radius analysis, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_test_impact or get_risk_score.

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 'Map what a feature change affects' implies this tool is for impact analysis after a feature change, which is a usable but implicit usage signal. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or guidance on when to choose this tool over the listed sibling tools.

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