impact_emit

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and non-destructive. The description goes further and adds materially useful behavioral detail: the analysis is offline and plan-only, no cloud credentials are used, a plan-only manifest can never claim 'safe', and the full manifest is written to a private temp file rather than returned inline due to size. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter format, safety/behavioral caveats, and return value are each covered in a clean, front-loaded structure. 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?

For a tool with one parameter, safety annotations, an output schema, and a single sibling, the description covers everything needed: what it produces, what input it accepts, key limitations, the handle-based return contract, and the follow-up tool. Nothing important is missing.

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 provides no description for plan_path (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It does this excellently by specifying that plan_path may point at 'terraform show -json' output or a saved .tfplan file, and that conversion is automatic. This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs.

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 verb and resource: 'Produce an Impact Manifest... from a Terraform plan, using blastcheck.' It clearly states what the tool creates and from what input, and distinguishes it from the obvious sibling impact_explain by noting the returned handle is meant to be passed there.

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 impact_emit: when you need to generate a plan-only Impact Manifest from a Terraform plan. It explicitly routes the downstream step to impact_explain via the manifest_handle. It does not spell out 'when not to use' or formal alternatives, but the relationship to impact_explain is clear enough.

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