code_graph_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and gives a concrete example of expected path format, which adds useful safety and input expectations. However, it doesn't describe return structure or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose with 'Blast radius' and including only essential details: path format, an example, and read-only status. Every word 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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description omits explanations for app_id and db_path. It also does not clarify what the returned data structure looks like, leaving important gaps for correct invocation, especially given the complexity of the code graph domain.

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 0%, and the description only explains file_paths with an example and repo-relative note. The required app_id and optional db_path are completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 function: identifying the blast radius of given files by showing which files/symbols import from them. The 'blast radius' phrasing and the import-based explanation distinguish it from sibling code_graph_* tools.

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 for impact analysis ('blast radius') and provides path format guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like code_graph_walk or code_graph_search, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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