analyze_impact

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

The description mentions 'confidence flags' but does not elaborate on what they indicate. There is no information about idempotency, side effects, performance, or authentication needs. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, which it fails to meet.

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 very short (one noun phrase), which is concise but not a complete sentence. It lacks structure and does not use front-loading effectively. It could be more informative while staying brief.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only vaguely mentions 'confidence flags'. The tool name suggests analysis, but essential details like context dependencies or return format are missing.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description mentions 'symbol' but does not clarify what symbol_id represents (e.g., a numeric ID, file path, or expression). No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 'Cross-stack blast radius for a symbol, with confidence flags' indicates the tool analyzes the impact of a symbol across stacks, which is distinct from siblings like find_references (locates usages) or explain_symbol (provides explanation). However, it lacks a clear verb and could be more precise.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_references or get_endpoint. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or preferred scenarios.

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