Get Function Complexity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it analyzes cyclomatic complexity, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies anything, what the return format is, or error/edge-case behavior. The word 'Analyze' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target, and the motivation efficiently.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. The stated purpose mitigates this somewhat, but the absence of output details leaves a gap for the agent.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a single file_path parameter already described as 'Path to the source file to analyze.' The description adds the context of analyzing functions and complexity, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter documentation.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Analyze'), a specific resource ('a file's functions'), and a specific metric ('cyclomatic complexity'), with a clear purpose ('prioritize which functions need tests most urgently'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_test_coverage or find_untested_functions.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need complexity-based prioritization for testing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the stated purpose gives clear contextual guidance for selection.

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