analyze_impact

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses cross-stack analysis and confidence flags but omits details on read-only status, resource access, 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, front-loaded sentence of 7 words. It is very concise, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing brevity.

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 complexity of cross-stack analysis and the absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'blast radius' entails, the meaning of 'confidence flags', or the expected output format.

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 description adds that the parameter is 'for a symbol', but with 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient. It does not explain what symbol_id represents, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond being a number.

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 uses 'cross-stack blast radius' to clearly convey impact analysis of a symbol across multiple stacks. It distinguishes from siblings like find_references (direct references) and explain_symbol (symbol explanation). The mention of 'confidence flags' adds specificity.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, without context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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