topology_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so thoroughly. It explains that the analysis is approximate, intra-file, augmented by LSP when available, and that it returns a clear message when topology is disabled or the symbol is not indexed. This goes well beyond a typical description, covering limitations, fallback behavior, and error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core definition, then proceeds through output structure, primary use, and important caveats. Every sentence adds unique value; there is no repetition of schema content or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and remains highly scannable.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the two returned sections and their directionality. It also addresses source reliability, cross-file augmentation, and failure modes. This is a complete picture for an agent to know what to expect and when the tool is appropriate, making it self-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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter already documented (name, path, depth, max_bytes, max_nodes, edge_kinds). The description adds high-level context about BFS traversal and blast radius, but does not need to compensate for missing schema information. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers all parameters.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented definition: 'Bidirectional BFS blast-radius analysis around a named symbol.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the two output sections ('depends on' and 'depended on by') and states its primary purpose ('assess blast radius before a refactor'). This is unambiguous and differentiates it from other topology and reference 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?

The description explicitly states the primary use case: 'Primary use: assess blast radius before a refactor.' It also provides practical context with caveats about the topology source being approximate and intra-file, and mentions the LSP fallback for cross-file callers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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