blast_radius

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it uses BFS traversal of CALLS edges in reverse, respects max_depth, excludes the changed method, and lists return keys (fqn, file_path, depth). This gives the agent a complete understanding of the tool's operation.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, but it is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though the format could be tightened. Overall, it communicates efficiently.

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 tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers all aspects: parameter meanings, behavior (BFS, exclusion of changed method), and return structure. It is complete and leaves no critical 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains method_fqn format with an example, max_depth default and max limit, and exclude_generated purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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 clearly states 'Find all methods transitively affected by changing the given method.' It specifies the action (find), resource (methods), and context (transitively affected by change), which distinguishes it from siblings like find_callers that likely provide only direct callers.

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 does not explicitly provide when or when-not to use this tool compared to alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like find_cascade_risk or find_taint_flows, leaving the agent to infer from the description alone.

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