shader_analyze_complexity

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the result is an estimate based on graph structure and risk flags, and that it is not a compiled instruction count, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether any editor state changes occur, or what side effects or permissions are involved.

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 well structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope and complementary tools, then parameters, knowledge-base pointer, and an example. Every section earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter analysis tool, the description covers purpose, method, limitations, complementary tools, parameter semantics, a KB reference, and an example. An output schema is present, so detailed return-value documentation is not required here, and nothing critical for calling the tool correctly seems missing.

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 Args section in the description is important and does compensate. It defines material_path as 'Material or Material Instance asset path to inspect' and include_recommendations as 'Include optimization suggestions,' and provides a concrete example path. This adds usable meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Estimate Material shader complexity from graph structure and risk flags.' It also distinguishes itself from a compiled instruction count and identifies complementary visualization tools, making its purpose and scope clear.

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 explicitly frames this as a 'fast technical-art audit' and says it is 'not a compiled instruction count.' It also names renderer_capture_viewmode and shader_visualize_overdraw as the tools to pair with for scene-level visual validation, giving the agent clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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