gograph_complexity

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it mentions freshness checking, refresh behavior in current mode, and retry for precise graphs after source changes. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description adds useful context without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It has clear sections for behavioral notes, usage guidance, and return details. While not overly long, it could be slightly tightened for conciseness without losing clarity.

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 simple input schema (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description fully covers what is needed: the input filter behavior, output structure (list of functions with score and severity), and empty results. It provides a complete picture for the agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that the optional `symbol` parameter is a substring filter that can target a specific function or set of functions, and notes the return structure includes complexity score and severity label. This adds meaningful context 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 states the tool reports cyclomatic complexity for Go functions, sorted with severity labels. It names the specific verb 'report' and resource 'Go functions', and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning what it does not do.

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 (code quality audits, identifying functions needing decomposition, setting CI budgets) and when not to use (listing three sibling alternatives for specific metrics). This is exemplary usage direction.

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