analyze_complexity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that supplying sessionId avoids rescanning (implying path triggers a rescan), which is useful. But it doesn't disclose performance/rate implications, what 'slim findings' means, or how this relates to a prior review_project call—key behavioral details for an analysis tool.

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 two-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded, stating purpose then a usage preference. Little wasted text, though the phrase 'slim findings' is vague jargon.

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 an analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an overview of what's analyzed and returned. But it leaves gaps: it doesn't describe output format/structure, required prerequisites (must a review_project session exist?), or how 'high-complexity' is estimated. Adequate but not complete.

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 description must compensate for the 3 undocumented parameters (path, limit, sessionId). The description mentions sessionId and path but not what format/units they use, and completely omits the limit parameter. This leaves a meaningful gap in parameter understanding.

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 states the tool provides a 'Complexity view from a review_project session (or path)' with specific outputs (file-size distribution, high-complexity files, slim findings). This is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like analyze_code_quality, though the resource (complexity view) and outputs differentiate it reasonably.

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 implies usage: analyze complexity after a review_project session. It advises preferring sessionId over path. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like analyze_code_quality or analyze_architecture, nor when NOT to use it.

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