complexity_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool generates a report and is a Pro feature but says nothing about output format, side effects, required API key, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with an api_key parameter.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the 'Pro feature' caveat in parentheses. No redundant phrasing, though it could have used the space to add parameter or output context.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented api_key parameter, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool. Missing return format, prerequisite behavior, and differentiation from sibling complexity tools.

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 only 50%; directory has a description but api_key does not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the 'Pro feature' hint, which only indirectly relates to api_key. It does not compensate for the undocumented api_key parameter.

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?

States a clear verb ('generate') and resource ('full complexity analysis report with trends'), which differentiates it somewhat from sibling complexity_analyze or complexity_suggest_simplifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 on when to use this tool instead of complexity_analyze or complexity_suggest_simplifications. The 'Pro feature' note hints at a prerequisite but does not explain context, alternatives, or exclusions.

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