Identifies files affected by modifying a target module, revealing the blast radius of a code change before you edit.
Identify files affected by modifying a target module (blast radius).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Modified file path. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool identifies affected files but does not disclose output format, analysis depth, limitations, or whether it is read-only.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a short tool definition, though it could include a bit more routing or behavioral context without becoming bloated.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain more about what the agent gets back and how the analysis behaves. It leaves key details like return format and analysis scope unspecified.
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?
There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that filePath is the modified file path. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema baseline.
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 and resource: identify files affected by modifying a target module, with the clarifying term blast radius. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like find_symbol or trace_dependencies, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
It implies usage for impact analysis but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over trace_dependencies, assess_change_risk, or analyze_project. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.