impact_analysis

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the key behavior: recursion to the second level and identification of affected files. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires an indexed project, or has other prerequisites or side effects.

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, tightly-worded sentence with no filler. It leads with the most distinguishing behavioral detail, '2-level recursive,' and contains only information relevant to choosing and invoking the tool.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and result shape. But it omits input format guidance and any prerequisites around project path or index freshness, leaving a meaningful gap for reliable invocation.

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% for the only parameter, symbol. The description merely repeats the phrase 'for a symbol' and adds no detail about the expected symbol format, syntax, casing, or how to qualify it, leaving the agent with insufficient parameter guidance.

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 that the tool analyzes a symbol and returns two levels of recursive callers plus affected files. This distinguishes it from siblings like callers_of and callees_of, though it lacks an explicit verb and is phrased as a noun phrase.

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 context for when the tool should be chosen over related alternatives such as callers_of, callees_of, or search_code. The intended use case is only implied by the tool name and the mention of recursive callers and affected files.

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