Compute blast radius

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not obligated to cover safety. It does add semantic value by defining what 'blast radius' concretely returns — dependents, overriders, implementers — but says nothing about cost, ordering, or whether the queried node is included in the result.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core definition comes before any qualifiers. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or schema.

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 traversal over an indexed graph with a fully documented 4-parameter schema, the description covers the concept but not the operational edges an agent needs — traversal direction, whether transitive depth is bounded, and whether the source node appears in results are all left open with no output schema to fall back on.

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%: node, limit (default 20) and expand (full objects vs ids) are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as how limit interacts with traversal order. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific analytical result ('nodes that break if a node changes') and enumerates the relationship kinds it collects (dependents, overriders, implementers). This is far more specific than a tautology and implicitly differentiates it from the generic graph-walk siblings like codetopo_descendants, though it never names them outright.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus codetopo_descendants, codetopo_ancestors, or codetopo_neighborhood, all of which walk the same graph. No prerequisites (e.g. index must exist) or exclusion conditions are given, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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