Complexity Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by explaining the significance of cyclomatic complexity (drives minimum tests required) and cognitive complexity (nesting-weighted readability cost), which helps the agent interpret results. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It leads with the core function, then explains the two metrics succinctly. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 read-only analysis tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it measures and the meaning of the metrics. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but 'per-function' implies a structured result. Annotations cover safety, and the tool is simple enough that an agent can call it correctly with the given information.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter with a clear description ('Absolute path to the repository root'). The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so it doesn't exceed the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage. No enrichment beyond the schema is provided.

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 clearly states that the tool analyzes per-function cyclomatic and cognitive complexity, specifying what each metric means. It has a specific verb (analyzes) and resource (complexity), and it distinguishes itself from generic code quality tools by focusing on these two metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like code_quality or test_coverage, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. With many siblings (code_quality, test_coverage, etc.), an agent has no indication of when complexity analysis is the right choice.

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