get_complexity_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only analysis tool but does not disclose potential performance implications, traversal behavior, default output format, or side effects. The brief mention of limit/summary_only hints at output control but leaves much unspecified.

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 compact two sentences. The first states the core purpose and the second points to key output controls. No filler or redundant details are present.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the metrics are calculated, what summary_only does, default behavior for parameters, or the structure of results. An agent cannot adequately anticipate edge cases or all possible configuration needs from this description.

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 description coverage is 100% with property-level descriptions like 'Max results' and 'Summary only', so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for two parameters (limit and summary_only) and clarifies metric names, but does not enrich the understanding of other parameters like max_depth, max_files, or ignore_patterns beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it returns complexity metrics and names three specific metrics (nesting, params, cognitive), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on line counts, functions, thresholds, etc., though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 only usage guidance is 'Use limit/summary_only to control output,' which is about how to control results, not when to choose this tool. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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