codegraph_affected

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the traversal algorithm (BFS), the result contents (file paths, relation types, traversal depth), and the notion of affected nodes. It doesn't discuss performance or side effects, but the read-oriented traversal description is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the first defines the algorithm and scope, the second gives the use case, and the third describes the return shape. Every sentence contributes.

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?

Given the fully described schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, algorithm, and return contents. It doesn't address edge cases like empty results or cycle behavior, but those are not necessary 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only slight reinforcement by mentioning 'node name' and traversal depth, but it doesn't provide meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: perform a BFS traversal to 'find every node that would be affected if you change it.' The blast-radius framing clearly distinguishes this from siblings like codegraph_query or codegraph_nodes, even though those alternatives are not explicitly named.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use before refactoring to understand blast radius.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or which sibling would be preferred for other scenarios.

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