impact_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the direct and transitive scope of the analysis, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires a pre-built dependency graph, or any side effects or prerequisites.

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 that is information-dense and front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The core functionality is clear, and the output schema likely covers the return format. However, the description lacks context about the 'path' parameter, potential prerequisites (e.g., a dependency graph), and how the tool integrates with sibling tools. This is a gap given the moderate complexity of impact analysis.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'file_path' is somewhat self-explanatory, 'path' with a default of '.' is ambiguous, and the description adds no meaning beyond the property names. The tool description should compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions but does not.

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 calculates both direct and transitive downstream files affected by a modification. The verb 'calculate' and the resource 'downstream files affected' are specific, and the scope ('direct and transitive') distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_dependency_graph.

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 implies the use case (assess impact before modifying a file) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the siblings. It does not say when to prefer this over build_dependency_graph or validate_architecture.

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