get_complexity_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description reinforces read-only nature and adds details about output format options (JSON, markdown, TOON) with token savings, which goes beyond basic safety.

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?

Two concise sentences with a structured note on output formats. No unnecessary words, all sentences earn their place.

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 5 parameters (all described in schema), no output schema, and rich sibling set, the description covers tool purpose, usage guidance, parameter defaults, output structure, and format options. Complete and self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, so description does not need to repeat parameters. However, it adds helpful clarifications: default min_cyclomatic (1 for file, 5 for project), behavior when file_path is omitted, and explanation of output_format options. This adds moderate value 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?

Clearly states it gets complexity metrics (cyclomatic, max nesting, param count) for symbols in a file or across the project. Distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_complexity_trend by noting that tool is for historical trends.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to identify complex code before refactoring' and points to an alternative for historical trends. Provides context but does not cover all possible use/non-use cases.

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