impact_of_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey the key behavior of transitive traversal through 'transitive blast radius' and implies a read-only operation via 'Find'. However, it does not disclose what the output will contain, whether the symbol itself is included, or any potential performance/cost implications.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It begins with the active verb 'Find' and immediately communicates the core purpose.

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 a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose but lacks usage guidance and return-value details. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left to guess what the response will contain. The description is adequate but leaves some context gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying 'exact fully-qualified TypeScript symbol', which clarifies the required format beyond the schema's 'Fully-qualified symbol'. The 'exact' and 'TypeScript' qualifiers help the agent understand the input more precisely.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Find' and clearly defines the scope: transitive blast radius of changing a TypeScript symbol. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the transitive reach, which is broader than just direct callers (as in find_callers) or general context.

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 'transitive blast radius' implies this is for assessing change impact, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like find_callers or explain_context. No direct comparison or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implied.

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