analyze_complexity

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions structural analysis but does not explain limitations (e.g., may not handle dynamic behavior, recursion, or complex algorithms accurately), nor does it mention what happens with unsupported languages or code errors.

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 one clear sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose but lacks details on language support, output format, and limitations. For a simple analysis tool, it's minimally complete, but a bit more detail on what the output looks like would be helpful.

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 parameter meanings. It mentions 'code snippet' clearly relates to the 'code' parameter, but 'language' is not described at all, and the default 'python3' is not mentioned in the description. The description adds some meaning for 'code' but not for 'language'.

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 the tool analyzes code snippets to estimate asymptotic time complexity using structural analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_code or simplify_expression.

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 alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The context signals indicate siblings like benchmark or compare_execution, but no comparison is made.

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