get_complexity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals 'ultra-compact output' as a return trait and implies a read-only scan, but it does not explain whether thresholds combine, how results are ordered, or what specific fields are returned.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core function is stated first, followed by the purpose and output trait. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke correctly: what it lists, why to use it, and what the output is like. It could detail the output format, but that is not essential for a simple analysis tool.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description with defaults and an example for file_pattern. The description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('functions/methods') with a clear criterion ('above complexity thresholds... too many lines or params'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or search_in_file.

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 phrase 'to help prioritize what to refactor without reading every file' provides a clear use case and context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended scenario is evident.

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