get_complexity_metrics

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 value by specifying 'tree-sitter AST parsing' and the 'No prior indexing required' behavioral trait, which goes beyond annotation signals.

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: first clearly states purpose and outputs, second provides a key usage note. No superfluous information, front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

With 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It could mention supported file types or behavior on missing files, but the core functionality is well described.

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 the parameters are self-explanatory (repo_path, file_path). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes code complexity for a source file using specific metrics (functions, classes, cyclomatic complexity, etc.). Verb 'Analyze' and resource 'code complexity' are specific and distinct from siblings like get_cohesion_metrics or get_coupling_metrics.

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 statement 'No prior indexing required' provides a clear usage context, but there is no guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among the many sibling tools. Implied usage only.

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