get_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only analysis operation with concrete return categories, which is transparent enough for a non-mutating tool. It does not discuss caching, failure modes, or performance, but these are not critical for understanding the tool's core behavior.

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 concise sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second states the return value, and the third gives usage guidance. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description compensates for the missing output schema by naming exactly what is returned — direct dependents, transitive dependents, and test files. It also gives a clear usage moment. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_impact_from_diff, but the single-file focus is implied strongly enough for most contexts.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'a specific file' which maps to the required 'file' parameter, but adds no deeper parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: it analyzes the dependency graph to find files impacted by a specific file. It also enumerates the distinct outputs — direct dependents, transitive dependents, and associated test files — which separates it from sibling tools like get_dependencies or get_impact_from_diff.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Use this BEFORE implementing changes to understand the full scope of impact.' It does not list exclusions or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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