get_complexity_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool requires git, and describes the return format (JSON structure). No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise with 4 short informative sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds utility, alternatives, read-only nature, and return format. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format. It covers the git dependency, parameter meaning (though schema already covers), and the usage context. The description is complete for a simple tool with 2 parameters and clear behavior.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions the default for snapshots (5) but the schema already includes this information. Therefore, the description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 shows file complexity over git history using cyclomatic complexity, and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings (get_complexity_report for current snapshot, get_symbol_complexity_trend for symbol-level). The verb 'get' combined with resource 'complexity_trend' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('to track whether a file is improving or degrading') and when not to use it by naming exact alternatives for current snapshot and symbol-level trends. It also notes the requirement for git.

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