topology_affected

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'heuristic and biased toward recall,' that each test 'carries a confidence and the reason it was flagged,' and that the tool 'returns a clear message when topology is disabled.' It also explains the methodology (traversing inward dependency edges and co-location), providing substantial behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, then provides methodology, behavioral notes, confidence/reason output, and the disabled-case fallback. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of inputs (changed files or symbols), methodology, output characteristics (confidence and reason), and an edge case (topology disabled). It could specify the exact return structure, but it adequately covers the essential context for selecting and invoking the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'files' and 'symbols' are the change roots and that 'max_results' limits output, but it does not add significant detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The added context of co-location and recall bias relates to behavior, not parameter meaning.

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: 'After you change code, ask this which tests to run instead of running the whole suite.' It specifies the action (returns affected files and tests) and scope (given changed files or symbols), distinguishing it from general search or reference tools by focusing on test selection after code changes.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'After you change code, ask this which tests to run instead of running the whole suite.' It implicitly excludes the alternative of running the entire suite, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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