get_impact

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

Annotations confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context on default output (10 files + counts, ~400 tokens) and the summary_only option (~80 tokens), which is beyond annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output details, and a directive. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return values (files and counts, or summary counts). It covers default behavior, token sizes, and a use case. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds meaning by linking default behavior to the 'limit' parameter (default 10) and explaining 'summary_only' in practical terms. Slight improvement over schema alone.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'blast radius for a file', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_node or get_history. It explicitly ties to the pre-modification workflow.

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 states 'ALWAYS call before modifying any file', providing strong usage context. It also mentions the summary_only option for gate checks. However, it does not explicitly list scenarios where the tool should not be used or alternatives.

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