Two tools with minimal schema and description quality. Both tools have descriptions (10-20 chars baseline), but lack critical parameter details. index_files accepts a generic 'file_contents' object with no type constraints on values; calculate_blast_radius accepts a bare string with no format guidance. Neither tool documents output schema. No error handling guidance, no parameter validation rules, no recovery paths. Naming is verb-based but descriptions are too terse to guide LLM selection. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint present in metadata but not in schema). Composition is reasonable (two distinct concerns) but parameter design is underdeveloped.

• Add explicit output schema to both tools. Document index_files returns {indexed_files: number, symbols_count: number, symbols: [string], call_graph: {[string]: [string]}}. Document calculate_blast_radius returns {modified_symbol: string, direct_callers: [string], transitive_callers: [string]}.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Include WHEN to use (e.g. 'Call this first to map dependencies before analyzing impact'), WHAT it returns, and any prerequisites. Current descriptions are too terse for LLM selection.
• Add parameter constraints. For file_contents, specify {type: object, additionalProperties: {type: string, description: 'Python source code as string'}}. For symbol, add pattern or format: 'Format: filepath::symbol_name (e.g. utils.py::parse_config)'.
• Document error cases and recovery paths. E.g. 'If symbol not found, returns empty blast_radius. Ensure symbol was indexed via index_files first.' Add guidance for syntax errors in file_contents.
• Add tool annotations to schema. Include readOnlyHint: true for both tools (they do not modify state). This helps clients understand safety and retry semantics.