codegraph_impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the traversal methodology (upward via callers of callers) and the dependency on codegraph_search. It does not explicitly mention read-only safety or output format, but the analysis nature implies a non-mutating operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core question and then the method. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, method, and input provenance. Since there is no output schema, it could be more explicit about the return structure, but the phrase 'find all potentially impacted code' gives a sufficient expectation for selection and 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 covers both parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that symbol_id must originate from codegraph_search and by clarifying the upward traversal direction, which aids understanding of max_depth's effect. This goes slightly 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: perform impact analysis for a symbol change. It distinguishes itself from siblings like codegraph_callers by explicitly specifying upward traversal ('callers of callers') and requiring a symbol ID from codegraph_search.

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 concrete use case ('if I change this symbol, what else might be affected?') and a prerequisite (requires symbol ID from codegraph_search). The traversal direction implies when to prefer this over direct-caller tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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