get_complexity_hotspots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly describes the heuristic and purpose but does not mention if the operation is read-only, how files are traversed, or any potential error modes. It also omits return format, though that is partially covered by the purpose.

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 that states the purpose and heuristic without extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core behavior (ranking files) and the criteria used. It could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., a list of file paths with scores), but the given information is largely sufficient for a basic understanding.

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%: both repoPath and limit have descriptive schemas. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the heuristic context, so the baseline of 3 applies without extra credit.

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 ranks files using a size/complexity heuristic (function count, class count, lines of code). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like get_repo_structure and get_dependency_graph.

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 phrase 'so you know which parts of a codebase are worth looking at first' implies use for prioritizing code review, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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