get_static_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope (single file, current code) and explicitly excludes git history, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not describe any side effects, permissions required, error handling, or what exactly constitutes 'evidence' (e.g., output format). The description is functional but lacks depth in behavioral transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope. Every word adds value—'Current-code-only' and 'No git history involved' are essential qualifiers that prevent misuse. It is structurally clean and easy to parse.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'evidence' looks like, any prerequisites (e.g., a valid repo path), or potential limitations. It covers the core scope well but leaves gaps about expected results and usage constraints, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to call it correctly in all scenarios.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters 'repo_path' or 'file' at all. While the parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify expected formats, relative vs absolute paths, or any constraints. This leaves an agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: providing evidence of who imports a file and who calls functions/classes defined in it, with a scope of 'current-code-only'. The explicit exclusion of git history distinguishes it from the sibling get_historical_impact, making its purpose unambiguous and specific.

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 implies when to use this tool by emphasizing 'current-code-only' and 'No git history involved,' which signals it is for analyzing the current state of the codebase rather than historical changes. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, but the contrast with historical impact is clear enough for an agent to infer the typical use case.

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