analyze_blast_radius

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

The description fully discloses behavior: 'Pure graph computation — no LLM, no network. Read-only. Does not touch cloud resources.' This covers all side effects and constraints, compensating for the lack of 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 approximately 100 words, well-structured with sections, front-loaded with core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or wasted text.

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 no output schema, the description lists return values (blast-radius metrics, SPOF, tier position). It explains use case and behavior sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Minor omission: it could clarify the expected structure of spec_json, but the schema's additionalProperties allows flexibility.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about how spec_json builds a directed graph and what component_id focuses on, plus lists output fields. This extra context raises the score above the baseline of 3.

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: 'Analyze blast radius and dependency structure of an architecture.' It lists specific outputs (direct/transitive dependents, blast-radius size, SPOF status, tier position) and distinguishes itself from siblings like score_architecture and lint_architecture.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'when you have a spec and want to understand coupling and failure domains before production.' It also mentions complementary tools (score_architecture, lint_architecture) but does not specify when not to use.

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