Complexity Trend

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds behavioral context: it samples at regular intervals, identifies spikes, etc. No mention of destructive effects or permissions needed, but given readOnlyHint, the description sufficiently supplements the annotation.

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 two sentences plus a crucial note, all front-loaded with purpose and benefits. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 description lacks specifics about the return value or output format, and there is no output schema. While the tool's purpose and usage are clear, a user (or AI) might need to know what kind of data the trend provides (e.g., numeric values, charts?). This is a minor gap.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, such as format or constraints not already mentioned.

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 tracks how a file's complexity has changed over time via git history sampling. The specific verb 'track' and resource 'file complexity' are present, and the focus on trends distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hotspots' which likely give a single snapshot.

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 explicitly details what the tool identifies: files growing out of control, complexity spikes from specific commits, and files needing splitting. It also provides a prerequisite note about repo_path when not in a git repo. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparisons with sibling tools.

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