dependency_blast_radius

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at methodology ('reverse BFS') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, performance characteristics, or what the return format is. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, which is good for front-loading. However, it is too terse for the tool's complexity—there are two parameters and sibling tools that require differentiation. The brevity sacrifices necessary information, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 is insufficiently complete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only provides a high-level purpose and algorithm hint, leaving critical details like lockfilePath semantics, return values, and usage context unresolved for a non-trivial tool.

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 has 2 parameters (packageName, lockfilePath) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention either parameter. It fails to explain what packageName or lockfilePath mean or how they should be used, forcing the agent to infer from the parameter names alone. This is a complete lack of parameter semantics.

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 function: 'Analyzes dependency blast radius using reverse BFS.' The verb 'analyzes' and resource 'dependency blast radius' are specific, and the method 'reverse BFS' adds technical clarity. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the focus on blast radius distinguishes it from dependency_upgrade_analysis, security_audit_graph, and open_dependency_visualizer.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It simply states what it does, leaving usage context implicit. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives mentioned.

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