Complexity Hotspots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds little beyond 'rank files', which aligns with readOnly. No contradiction, but it could detail sorting order, output format, or performance considerations.

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?

Single sentence covering purpose effectively. No wasted words, though it could include a brief note on output format or usage context without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the high schema coverage, annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits mention of the sorting order (descending by complexity) which would help set expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. The description's generic statement does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 'rank' and resource 'files by cyclomatic complexity' and clearly states the goal 'surface refactor targets'. It is distinct from siblings which focus on other metrics like lines, cost, or languages.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., scc_top_files). The description implies it is for refactoring targets but does not specify when to prefer this over other tools or provide exclusion criteria.

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