Analyze a symbol's downstream blast radius before refactoring: find all callers, affected files, and risk level across the codebase.
Analyze cascading downstream blast radius before refactoring. Identifies all callers, affected files, and risk level across the codebase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | Maximum depth for cascading caller traversal (default: 2). | |
| symbol_name | Yes | Name of the function, class, or method to analyze. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 discloses the analysis outputs (callers, affected files, risk level) and the cascading nature of the traversal, but never states that it is read-only, how depth affects results, or what the risk level is derived from.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the tool name. The trailing 'across the codebase' is mild filler but does not undermine the structure.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does useful work by naming the three return elements (callers, affected files, risk level). It remains a bit thin on how risk level is defined and what the traversal produces at each depth, but it covers the essentials for invoking the 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 description coverage is 100%, so both symbol_name and max_depth are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only echoes the cascading concept and adds no new syntax, format, or semantic detail about the depth parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Analyze cascading downstream blast radius') and enumerates what it identifies (callers, affected files, risk level). It is clear enough to distinguish from find_callers by the word 'cascading,' but it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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 phrase 'before refactoring' implies the usage context, which is better than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of find_callers as the lighter-weight alternative for direct-caller lookup, so an agent must guess at the boundary between the two.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.