axon_pro_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Find' implies a read-only analysis, but nothing states whether the traversal is expensive, whether results are transitive or direct, or how depth affects scope. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a label-style lead-in ('Blast radius analysis:') and zero wasted words. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though very minimal.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description suffices to convey what it returns (affected symbols) but omits depth semantics and relationship type, which matter for blast-radius interpretation. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (symbol and depth) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it never explains what depth controls conceptually).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'find all symbols affected by changing a given symbol', framed as blast-radius analysis. This is clearly distinct from siblings like query, context, or dead_code, though it does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling axon_pro_impact_on_tests.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite a near-identical sibling (axon_pro_impact_on_tests) that an agent could easily confuse it with. The agent must infer the selection criterion on its own.

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