get_component_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (finds modules and PRs) and adds the 'blast radius' concept, but does not disclose potential limitations, such as whether results are direct or transitive, performance implications, or authentication requirements. While useful, it lacks depth beyond the core purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded: a clear one-sentence purpose, a short usage note, and a single-parameter Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what the component_name should look like. Minor gaps include not specifying the output's shape or edge cases, but the output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this description is largely adequate.

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 provides only a raw string parameter with no description, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining 'File path or service name' and providing concrete examples ('api_service.py', 'backend/app/auth'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. It could go further by clarifying matching semantics (exact vs. partial), but it still meets the need.

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 'Find all modules and PRs where a specific component (file/service) appears'—a specific verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'blast radius' and 'what depends on it and what it depends on', making its unique purpose obvious.

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?

It provides a clear use context: 'Use this to understand the blast radius of changes to a component.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is sufficient for a simple tool with a single purpose.

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