mcp_analyze_complexity

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation (estimation) but omits output format (Big-O notation string? Structured breakdown?), side effects, idempotence, error handling for invalid code, or supported language constraints.

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?

Extremely terse (7 words) with no redundancy. However, given zero annotations and lack of output schema, this brevity under-serves the agent's information needs rather than efficiently organizing necessary details.

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 100% parameter coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to compensate by describing return value structure, success/failure modes, or behavioral constraints expected for a code analysis tool.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Phrase 'optional detail' loosely references the 'detailed' boolean parameter but adds no semantic depth beyond schema descriptions 'Include detailed breakdown'.

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?

States specific action (Estimate) and subject (Big-O complexity). However, does not differentiate from sibling analysis tools like analyze_file or code_quality_analyzer, which leaves ambiguity about when to use this specific analysis function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (analyze_file, code_helper), nor when to set detailed=true vs false, nor when the language parameter is necessary.

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