Impact Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'modified or deleted' scenario but does not disclose return format, traversal depth, or whether indirect effects are included. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple read-only analysis tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It lacks details like return format or whether traversal is recursive, but these are inferable from the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (node_id and project) having descriptions. The description's 'target node' maps directly to node_id, adding minimal value beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('calculate') with a clear resource ('downstream affected nodes') and a defined scenario ('if a target node is modified or deleted'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_dependencies by focusing on the impact of 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 implies when to use it: when evaluating the consequences of modifying or deleting a node. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity relative to similar graph-traversal tools.

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