context

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It clearly explains the data it returns (cyclomatic complexity, git churn, last-touched date) and its multi-language coverage via lizard. It doesn't state side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by the context (profiling for review).

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition and ending with actionable guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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 description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output for an agent to use it appropriately. It covers what metrics are returned and how to interpret them (high complexity + high churn → deep review). No formal output schema exists, but the described behavior is complete enough for decision-making.

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?

Both parameters (repo and files) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 this tool provides prioritization context (complexity, churn, last-touched) for reviewing a change, explicitly distinguishing it from findings. It is specific about what it computes and names the tool's purpose precisely.

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?

Gives explicit guidance: 'use this to decide where to dig before reading code' and excludes findings ('NOT findings'). It doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives, but the context for when to use is clear.

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