tidy_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose read-only behavior and the 'NOT IMPLEMENTED YET' status, plus the general shape of results. However, it omits how the target is selected, any prerequisites, error behavior, or what 'read-only' means exactly in this toolset.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The 'NOT IMPLEMENTED YET' warning is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes either scope, expected output, or safety behavior.

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 an unimplemented, parameterless tool, the description conveys intent and safety adequately. But it leaves uncertainty about invocation: no input schema, no mention of relying on a current session target/context, and no output schema. An agent could understand what the tool would eventually do but not how it would be called.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by naming the subject categories (token, component, style) and the evaluation dimensions (breakage, migration costs, regression risk), but it does not clarify how the subject is supplied given the empty input 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's domain: blast radius for a token, component, or style, and enumerates the expected outputs: breakage, migration costs, and regression risk. It is distinct from sibling tools like tidy_status or tidy_plan, but it uses a noun phrase ('Blast radius for...') rather than a direct action verb and does not explicitly name a sibling contrast.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tidy_plan, tidy_apply, or tidy_drift. The phrase 'What breaks if you rename it' implies a rename-impact scenario, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing are provided.

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