code_graph_impact

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

The description adds semantic behavior beyond the annotations by explaining that it returns the files/symbols that import the given files, and it explicitly states 'Read-only', which aligns with readOnlyHint. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 brief and well-structured: it states the purpose, gives a concrete parameter example, and notes read-only behavior. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 covers the core operation and the most important parameter example, but it omits explanations for `app_id` and `db_path`, and does not describe the return format. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent invoking the 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 description provides useful semantics and an example for `file_paths`, noting they are repo-relative. However, `app_id` and `db_path` are not explained at all, and with no parameter descriptions in the schema, this is only partial compensation.

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 operation: identifying which files/symbols import from the given files, framed as 'blast radius'. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling graph tools like search, explain, walk, and suggest, even though it does not explicitly name them.

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 directly conveys the use case: determining the impact of changes by finding importers of specified files. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the intended context is clear.

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