large_files_and_complexity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose useful behavior: line counters are heuristics that do not parse code, commented-out code requires 3+ consecutive code-shaped comment lines, and suppression counting is broken down by kind and directory. It omits read-only nature, result ordering, and what limit/dir_depth actually do to output. Genuinely informative but with gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 single dense paragraph is front-loaded with the primary signals and avoids filler. The long enumeration of twelve suppression directives is borderline verbose but earns its place by defining exactly what is counted. Minor structural weakness is that the path note trails after the list.

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?

For a 7-parameter, zero-annotation tool with an output schema, the description explains the core analysis semantics well and need not describe return values. It stops short on limit, dir_depth, and repo behavior, and gives no indication of cost or output volume, so an agent cannot fully predict the call's effect.

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 the description must compensate across 7 parameters. It clarifies path (glob filter), max_nesting_depth (indent levels or brace depth), and the meanings of the two line thresholds, which is real added value. But repo, limit, and dir_depth are never explained, leaving nearly half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 names the specific signals the tool measures: files over max_file_lines, functions over max_function_lines, deepest nesting, commented-out code blocks, and suppression counts. The verb is only implied ('cheap debt signals without git'), but the resource and metrics are concrete enough to distinguish it from debt_summary or hotspot_debt. Sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

'Cheap debt signals without git' hints that this is the fast, git-free alternative for size/complexity checks, which is a usable context cue. However, it never says when to prefer it over debt_summary or hotspot_debt, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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