check_coupling

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and it adds context by specifying the type of analysis (CBO metrics). However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., whether it modifies files or just analyzes them), which could be useful. No annotation contradiction is present.

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, concise sentence: 'Analyze class coupling (CBO - Coupling Between Objects) metrics.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to understand. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to clarifying the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing code metrics), annotations cover behavioral aspects like destructiveness and idempotency, and the schema fully documents the single parameter. However, there is no output schema, so the description doesn't explain return values or results, which is a gap. The description is adequate but could benefit from more context on what the analysis entails or outputs.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented as 'Path to Python code to analyze.' The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Analyze class coupling (CBO - Coupling Between Objects) metrics.' It specifies the verb 'analyze' and the resource 'class coupling metrics,' which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'analyze_code' or 'check_complexity,' which prevents a score of 5.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'analyze_code' or 'check_complexity' for comparison. This lack of usage instructions makes it difficult for an agent to select the right tool.

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