code_complexity

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 clearly states the read-only computation nature, the supported file types, and the function scope. There are no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits disclosed because none are relevant, making this adequate for a simple analysis tool.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 two parameters and no output schema. The description clarifies purpose but does not mention the return format (e.g., a map of function names to complexity values) or error behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, leaving out return details is a minor gap, so a mid-range score is justified.

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 descriptions for both 'path' and 'function' already fully explain their meanings (absolute path and optional function filter). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Computes' with the resource 'cyclomatic complexity for functions in a TypeScript/JavaScript file', clearly distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools like code_smells or find_errors. It precisely scopes the input (functions in a file) and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage for measuring cyclomatic complexity but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as code_smells or analyze_file. There are no exclusions or preferred contexts, so the guidance is only implicit.

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