find_table_complexity

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the computed metrics and the per-table scope, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential performance implications, or how circular-FK involvement is determined. The information provided is moderately transparent but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core concept and enumerates the key metrics. There is 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?

With zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope for an agent to select and invoke it. Minor gaps remain around interpreting 'circular-FK involvement' and how this output differs from sibling tools, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds clarity by explaining what the tool evaluates rather than focusing on inputs, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 computes: structural complexity per table with specific metrics (column count, FK fan-in/out, circular-FK involvement). It lacks an explicit action verb like 'calculate' or 'analyze', but the noun phrase is unambiguous and the tool name reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling find_circular_foreign_keys by being broader in scope, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_missing_indexes, find_circular_foreign_keys, or generate_erd. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected or what prerequisites or contexts it is best suited for.

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