blast_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about recursion/cycle handling, whether results are truncated, cost of deep traversal, or that the operation is a pure read. Only the purpose-level semantics are conveyed.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key concept ('影响面分析') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that it borders on under-specification for a graph traversal tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a multi-parameter graph-traversal tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough to predict traversal scope, cost, or depth behavior.

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 0%, so neither `fn` nor `max_depth` is documented anywhere. The phrase '按传播深度分层' hints that depth matters and `max_depth` defaults to 5, but the description never explicitly defines `fn` as the changed function source or explains what `max_depth` bounds.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: which functions a change to `fn` propagates to, layered by propagation depth. That is meaningfully distinct from `who_calls`/`what_calls` (single-hop) and `call_path` (paths between two nodes), though the description never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 statement of when to use this instead of the closely related call-graph siblings `who_calls`, `what_calls`, or `call_path`, despite four overlapping tools in the sibling list. The 'impact analysis' framing only implies the use case; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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