roslyn:analyze_change_impact

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses zero-based coordinates, output structure (list of impacted locations, safety, issues), and the purpose. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, but 'analyze' implies read-only. Sufficient for agent understanding.

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?

Three sentences plus a usage line, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. The important note about zero-based coordinates is prominent.

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?

Describes output adequately given no output schema. Could mention prerequisites like symbol existence or error handling. Otherwise, it provides sufficient context for a moderately complex analysis tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds emphasis on zero-based coordinates and enumerates changeType options, but these are already in the schema. Marginal added value.

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 it analyzes what would break if a symbol is changed, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_symbol or change_signature that actually perform changes, by emphasizing analysis before making 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 usage when considering a change to identify breaking changes, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for performing the actual change. Provides a clear usage pattern with parameter examples.

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