text_complexity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states it 'analyzes' complexity, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires network access, modifies data, or has rate limits. It also does not mention the output format, although an output schema exists separately.

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 very concise (one sentence plus parameter list) with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or examples that could improve clarity. It is efficient but not optimally structured for an agent.

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 an output schema present, the description is not required to detail return values. However, given the abundance of sibling readability tools, the description is too sparse to help an agent choose this tool. It does not explain what 'multiple readability dimensions' entails or how the tool differs from similar ones.

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 description adds a brief explanation for the single parameter 'text': 'Text to analyze complexity of.' Given parameter count is 1 and schema coverage is 0%, this explanation provides basic meaning but no additional details (e.g., length limits, encoding). It is minimally adequate for a simple string input.

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's purpose: 'Analyze overall text complexity using multiple readability dimensions.' This identifies the verb (analyze) and resource (text complexity) and hints at a composite nature. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling readability tools (e.g., dale_chall_score, fry_readability) by naming specific dimensions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_readability or specific readability index tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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