analyze_change_impact

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

The description implies a read-only analysis through the name and context, but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior. With no annotations, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Description is concise with a clear structure: purpose, usage example, output summary, and parameter breakdown. No redundant information.

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 4-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description explains input and output adequately. However, it could mention potential performance implications or error cases.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, and the description adds value with a usage example and detailed depth semantics (what each depth level includes), going beyond the schema.

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 analyzes the blast radius of changing a symbol, with usage example and output details. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_references and call hierarchy tools by focusing on transitive impact.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first') and explains depth options. However, it does not explicitly compare with similar tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives.

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