analyze_complexity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output the agent should expect, or any side effects or failure modes. While 'Evaluate' suggests analysis, the behavioral profile is largely undisclosed.

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 filler, so it is concise. However, it is terse to the point of omitting important usage and behavioral context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more context, but it only states what the tool evaluates. It does not explain return values, report formats, threshold behavior, or how this tool fits among the provided siblings. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly beyond the obvious path parameter.

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 describes 'path' and 'maxComplexity', but 'reportFormat' lacks an explanation beyond its enum and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the uncovered parameter. At 67% schema coverage, the description should clarify how reportFormat and maxComplexity affect the analysis, but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Evaluate', and names precise resources: cyclomatic and cognitive complexity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_performance or detect_code_smells, which target different concerns.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_code_smells or suggest_refactoring. No conditions, exclusions, or recommended contexts are mentioned; usage is only weakly implied by the word 'complexity'.

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