get_impact_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the behavioral detail of how the graph is constructed (via links, product overlap, mentions), but does not disclose any further behavior like result size, pagination, or performance implications. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a compact Args list. No redundant or filler content. The core functionality is front-loaded, and the parameter details are direct and scannable.

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 graph-building read tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and method. It lacks a note about what the returned graph structure looks like, but the output schema likely handles that. The parameter meanings are fully specified, so an agent can invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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%, but the description explicitly explains all three parameters: issue_id (Root issue ID or URL), depth (Link levels to follow, default 2), and instance (YouTrack instance, optional). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, giving an agent everything needed to fill parameters correctly.

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 starts with 'Build a cross-product dependency graph from an issue', which specifies a concrete action and outcome. It then names the three mechanisms (links, product overlap, mentions), distinguishing it from related tools like get_issue_links or get_roadmap. This is a clear, specific purpose.

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 clearly indicates this tool is used for building a dependency graph from a given issue, implying a read/analysis scenario. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use versus simpler link-retrieval tools.

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