projectbrain_impact_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The single sentence does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what data it accesses, performance implications, or side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy, but it achieves conciseness at the expense of critical information. Under-specification is not true conciseness.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain what the analysis returns, how to use the parameters effectively, or any behavioral details. Agent cannot use this tool correctly without guessing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (project_id, task, changed_files, etc.). The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the raw schema names.

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 'Analyze likely local project impact for changed files or symbols,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It differentiates from siblings like 'projectbrain_add_experience_claim' or 'projectbrain_inspect_policy' by focusing on impact 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'projectbrain_review_git_diff' or 'projectbrain_inspect_policy'). No mentions of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred.

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