trace_dependency_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-mutating, nor does it describe any limitations or prerequisites. The return description is also vague, leaving the agent uncertain about output structure.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, an Args list, and a Returns line. The Args section is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, though the Returns line is under-specified.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage. The description explains parameters but fails to describe the return structure or operational expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero descriptive coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It provides meaningful descriptions for all six parameters, including the allowed values for analysis_type and change_type, and clarifies the purpose of max_depth and working_directory.

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 traces dependency chains and analyzes refactoring impact for a module, explicitly combining both. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_data_flow or change_propagation_analysis because it targets module-level combined analysis.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when dependency tracing, refactoring impact, or both are needed. It explains the analysis_type parameter to select modes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it relative to sibling tools.

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