blastRadius

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the bounded BFS behavior, the dependency on 'codeintel index', and the honest limitation that freshness is always 'unknown' because the graph lacks per-node timestamps. This adds genuine transparency beyond the schema.

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 information-dense without being verbose, front-loading the core algorithm. The first sentence is somewhat dense with parentheticals, but every clause contributes value, and the limitation note is concise.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description explains the graph traversal logic, indexing prerequisite, and a known limitation, which is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. It omits details like authentication, but those are unlikely to be critical for this dependency-graph query tool.

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%, but the description gives meaningful context for both parameters: `symbol_or_package` is a package identifier (with example) and `repo` is where it is registered. It does not fully specify input formats for `repo` or possible variations of `symbol_or_package`, so it only partially compensates.

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 it performs a '2-hop bounded BFS over the package dependency graph' to find repos depending on a given symbol/package. The verb and resource are specific, and the example (npm:@scope/name) distinguishes it from sibling code-navigation tools.

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?

It conveys that this tool is for package dependency analysis, not code-level references, and mentions it relies on prior indexing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, though the sibling context makes this reasonably clear.

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