get_complexity_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Returns' implies a read operation, but there is no mention of performance implications, path handling, recursion limits, or any side effects. The note about limit/summary_only hints at potentially large outputs but does not explain behavior in 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It does not explain the return format, how metrics are computed, or how parameters like max_depth and max_files interact. The description is not sufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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?

All 8 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by explaining that limit and summary_only control output, but it does not elaborate on the meaning of other parameters like max_depth or ignore_patterns beyond their schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource (complexity metrics), and elaborates with concrete metric types (nesting, params, cognitive). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_line_counts or get_code_smells, which target different 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint ('Use limit/summary_only to control output') addresses output control, not selection criteria. Sibling tools such as get_code_smells or check_thresholds are not mentioned or contrasted.

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