function_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that a project must be loaded, what the return format looks like, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is too terse to provide meaningful transparency beyond the basic metric list.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose (metrics per function/method) and mentions filters only as optional, which is efficient and appropriately sized.

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 medium-complexity tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it names the metrics and filters but omits the return type, the need for a loaded project, and how filter thresholds apply. It is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would need to resolve.

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%, so each parameter already has clear meaning. The description adds limited value by naming the metric types and indicating threshold filters exist, but it does not elaborate on how min_lines and min_complexity behave or interact beyond what the schema states.

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 that the tool provides metrics per function/method (cyclomatic complexity, body lines, parameters) and mentions optional threshold filters. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_functions (which likely just lists names) and find_high_complexity (which focuses on one metric), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_high_complexity, find_long_functions, or inspect_function. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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