impact_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool determines 'full impact' but does not explain performance implications, side effects, or whether the analysis is exhaustive. It mentions output categories (tests, entry points, downstream consumers) but not the format or completeness guarantees. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence with about 20 words, front-loading the key action and outputs. Every word efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is optimally concise while still informative.

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 tool with 4 well-described parameters but no output schema, the description provides a reasonable output overview (tests, entry points, downstream consumers). However, given the complexity of impact analysis, additional details on return structure, pagination, or error conditions would improve completeness. Still, it is mostly sufficient.

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 input schema already covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates 'changed files or symbols' without elaborating on parameter constraints or usage. Therefore, no extra value is provided.

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's purpose: to determine the full impact of changed files or symbols on tests, entry points, and downstream consumers. It uses a specific verb ('determine') and resource ('changed files or symbols'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trace_callees by focusing on comprehensive impact rather than just dependency traversal.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., codebase must be indexed), or situations where sibling tools like trace_callees would be more appropriate. The description implies usage after changes but lacks clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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