Identify which tests are impacted when a specific symbol changes. Enter a symbol name to map test dependencies and target regression testing.
Identify which tests might be affected by changing a specific symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Symbol name to analyze test impact for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'might' hints that results are heuristic, which is a small plus, but the description omits whether this is a safe read-only operation, how the impact is computed (direct callers vs. transitive), and any latency or result-size characteristics for a repo-wide test-impact scan.
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 tight sentence with the analytical target front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 low-complexity, single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves key questions open: what 'affected' means in scope, how to interpret heuristic results, and when to prefer axon_pro_impact. It is adequate, not complete.
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% for the single 'symbol' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format guidance (e.g. fully-qualified name vs. simple name) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Identify which tests might be affected by changing a specific symbol.' An agent knows this is test-impact analysis rather than generic impact analysis. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling axon_pro_impact, which likely overlaps heavily, so it fails the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the closely related axon_pro_impact sibling, and no stated conditions or prerequisites (e.g. symbol must exist in the indexed repo, or that only 'impacted' tests within the analyzed graph are returned). The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.