gograph_impact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool. It has no side effects, requires no authorization or credentials, has no rate limits, and performs zero destructive modifications.' No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, behavior/safety, usage guidelines, and completeness. It is concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (static analysis, blast radius) and 3 optional parameters, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, and completeness. It mentions the return type ('transitive list of all upstream affected symbols') despite no output schema. An example is provided.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'Supports single symbol, uncommitted changes, or since a git ref' and providing an example symbol ('BuildGraph'), which adds context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool traverses the call graph backwards to find all symbols that eventually call the target (blast radius). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming gograph_callers as the tool for direct callers only.

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 includes explicit usage guidelines: 'Call this tool to determine the blast radius of a sensitive core component before refactoring. Do NOT use for direct callers only (use gograph_callers instead).' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with an alternative.

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