get_impact_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention output structure, performance, permissions, or side effects, offering only high-level functionality.

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, with a single purpose sentence and a bulleted parameter list. Every line adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

While the tool has an output schema, the description does not explain the graph structure or return value. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., must have an issue ID) and practical considerations, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'Root issue ID or URL', 'Link levels to follow'). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well, though the instance parameter is only labeled 'optional'.

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 it builds a cross-product dependency graph from an issue, specifying the sources (links, product overlap, mentions). This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like get_issue_links or get_roadmap.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide context, exclusions, or examples, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.

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