gograph_complexity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds valuable context beyond annotations: local execution, no credentials needed, no rate limits, and zero destructive modifications.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS). It is concise with about 4 sentences, no 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains input (symbol filter) and output (structured complexity report with numbers and severity labels, sorted). It covers the essential context for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for the one optional parameter. Description adds detail: filter effect, output format (complexity numbers and severity labels), and an example symbol value, which provides meaning beyond the schema's description.

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 the tool estimates and reports cyclomatic complexity metrics for Go functions, sorted highest to lowest. Distinguishes from sibling gograph_deps by explicitly saying not to use it for import dependency metrics.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (code quality auditing, identifying high-maintenance functions, planning refactoring) and a when-not-to-use with alternative (use gograph_deps for import dependency metrics).

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