compute_build_complexity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the output range, direction, and the existence of a per-factor breakdown, and it lists hard tags. However, it does not describe how inputs are combined, whether there are side effects, or how the hard tags affect the penalty.

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 with no filler. The main output is front-loaded, and the hard-tag list is compactly appended.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the tool needs more context than this. Missing details include how externalApisCount and integrationsCount contribute, what the per-factor breakdown looks like, and what happens when stackComplexityTags contains unknown values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially documents stackComplexityTags by listing the hard-tag values, but externalApisCount and integrationsCount are not described at all beyond their schema names and minimums. The meaning of these parameters and their impact on the penalty remain unclear.

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 names the computed resource (build_complexity_penalty), its scale and direction (0-10, higher=worse), and the per-factor breakdown output. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the many sibling compute_* tools, which target different signals.

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 explicit guidance is given for when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as compute_barrier or compute_dealbreakers_v2. The hard-tag list hints at relevant inputs but does not state a use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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