impact_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about auto-reindexing and the risk metric, but it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, or error conditions. The provided details are valuable but not comprehensive.

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 compact and front-loaded, using shorthand to convey multiple key points in two sentences. Every phrase earns its place, though the telegraphic style ('BEFORE modifying/renaming:', 'Line-level? call_chain. Simple edit? read_symbol+write_symbol.') sacrifices a bit of readability.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: primary use case, alternatives, auto-fresh indexing behavior, and core outputs (callers, callees, risk). It doesn't describe the return format in detail, but the schema covers parameters, and the description covers the decisions an agent needs to know when to choose this 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 input schema already documents all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning blast radius and risk, but it does not explain any parameter nuances that aren't in the schema. It does not need to, given the schema's thoroughness.

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's purpose: perform impact analysis before modifying or renaming by showing callers (blast radius), callees, and risk based on caller-count. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing line-level analysis to call_chain and simple edits to read_symbol+write_symbol, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool provides.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('BEFORE modifying/renaming') and contrasts with alternatives ('Line-level? call_chain. Simple edit? read_symbol+write_symbol.'). It also clarifies the auto-fresh indexing behavior, indicating when an explicit reindex is needed. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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