analyze_impact

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

The description confirms the tool is read-only ('Does NOT modify any files'), consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also details the output format (directly and transitively affected files, risk score 0-1), adding behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 only two sentences, both dense: first sentence covers purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output format and usage context adequately. It lacks examples or error conditions, but covers the essential aspects well given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters (files, projectRoot, tsconfigPath) beyond what the schema already provides, so no improvement over baseline.

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 'analyze[s] the blast radius of changing specific files' and returns affected files and a risk score. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from siblings like get_dependencies (which only lists direct dependencies).

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 explicitly advises using the tool 'BEFORE committing multi-file changes to understand what might break,' providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, though siblings are listed in context.

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