bpcs_complexity_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool computes border complexity and produces a spatial map, but it does not specify the output format, whether the tool modifies files, or any required permissions. The information is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's action and methodology without extraneous information.

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 lacks an output schema, and the description does not clarify the output format (e.g., image, data structure). For a tool that produces a 'spatial map,' more details on return type or visualization are needed for completeness. Additionally, given sibling tools, more differentiation 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (channel, file_path, threshold). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'for a given channel' but not providing additional context on usage or syntax. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: generating a detailed complexity map of all bit planes for a given channel. It specifies the method (border complexity for 8x8 blocks across all 8 bit planes) and the output (spatial map showing complex regions). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like bpcs_detect or bpcs_extract.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or other tools' use cases. This leaves the agent without context for choosing between complexity_map and related tools like bpcs_capacity or bpcs_threshold.

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