complexity_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'analyze' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, does not describe the output format, and gives no detail about how threshold affects behavior. The description is too generic to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description provides only a high-level goal. It does not explain what the tool returns, how threshold affects the analysis, whether api_key is required for all users, or how 'overly complex' is defined. An agent would need additional information to confidently interpret the tool's results.

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%, with all three parameters (api_key, directory, threshold) already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('analyze'), a specific resource ('functions'), and a concrete goal ('identify overly complex code'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like complexity_suggest_simplifications and complexity_report by focusing specifically on cyclomatic complexity analysis.

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 use when analyzing code complexity, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like complexity_report, complexity_suggest_simplifications, or smell_detect_long_methods. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, leaving the agent without clear selection guidance.

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