get_complexity_trends

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read-only operation ('Get') and that it relies on git history, but it does not describe the complexity metric used, the return format, or any potential costs or constraints of traversing history.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and data source.

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 required input is clear and the schema covers the optional fields, but there is no output schema and no description of what the returned trends look like. For a git-history-based tool, mentioning the complexity metric or return shape would make the definition more complete.

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 schema already documents filePath and the nested dateRange fields with start/end ISO descriptions. The description adds 'over time' and 'git history' context but does not clarify the optional dateRange filter or add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action and resource: getting historical complexity trends for files over time, with git history as the data source. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like analyze_file or analyze_repository through the 'historical' and 'over time' focus, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for historical trend analysis rather than single-file or repository-wide snapshot analysis. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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