get_complexity_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the prerequisite 'load_project' and defines risk levels, but does not address side effects, performance impact, or idempotency. It adds some behavioral context but not enough to fully compensate for missing 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, output, metrics, risk levels, and prerequisite. It is concise at ~120 words, front-loaded with the main goal, and every sentence contributes essential information. No fluff.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description provides metric definitions and risk levels, which aids understanding. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure or fields), leaving some ambiguity. Still, the level of detail is good.

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 the parameters are well-documented. The description adds little beyond the schema: it shows an example using 'filePath' and mentions granularity implicitly via 'per-method breakdown,' but does not detail 'includeDetails' or 'granularity' options. Baseline score applies.

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 what the tool does: 'Get cyclomatic complexity, cognitive complexity, LOC.' It lists specific metrics and risk levels, making the purpose unambiguous. Among many sibling analysis tools, this one is distinctively about complexity 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?

The description provides a usage example and explicitly states 'Requires load_project to be called first,' giving clear prerequisite context. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'analyze_method' or 'analyze_file,' but the context of complexity metrics implies its specific application.

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