explain_affected_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'assumed changed' assumption and implies a read-only analysis operation via 'explain', but never explicitly states that it is non-destructive or describes the output format (no output schema exists). Moderate disclosure, with room to be more explicit about side effects and return shape.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first. The second sentence adds the valuable sibling reference and scoping clarification, though it partially restates the first sentence's scoping idea. Efficient overall with no filler.

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 an analysis tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and the sibling relationship well but omits expected return format and parameter details. An agent can call it correctly but will not know what the 'detail' output looks like or how to format the parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the file parameter via 'a single file you name' and says nothing about repo_path format or the relationship between the two required parameters. The self-explanatory names carry most of the meaning; the description adds little beyond them.

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 (explain) and resource (why a single named file has its related files), and differentiates itself from siblings by referencing analyze_current_change as the source of the same evidence, scoped down. An agent can distinguish this from get_static_impact or get_historical_impact based on the explicit 'scoped to a single file' framing.

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?

Provides clear context by tying itself to analyze_current_change ('the same evidence ... scoped to a single file you name'), which tells the agent this is the per-file variant. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or how it compares to get_static_impact/get_historical_impact, so routing among all four siblings is left partly to inference.

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