complexity_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the output format ('readable format') but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the file doesn't exist, or any performance/error considerations. The description is too vague for a tool that presumably reads and formats data.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful detail about formatting. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'complexity analysis report' contains, how the display differs from raw data, or what happens if inputs are invalid. The lack of behavioral context makes it incomplete for effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3. It doesn't explain how parameters interact or their impact on the report display.

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 with a specific verb ('display') and resource ('complexity analysis report'), and specifies the output format ('readable format'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_project_complexity', but the focus on display vs. analysis is implied.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyze_project_complexity' for generating reports or clarify if this is for viewing pre-existing reports versus creating new ones.

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