complexity

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It only states it shows metrics sorted by complexity, but does not disclose what metrics (e.g., cyclomatic), whether read-only, or any behavioral traits beyond the bare action.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and concise.

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?

No output schema, yet description omits what metrics are returned (e.g., cyclomatic complexity). Given the tool's analytical nature, the description lacks essential detail about outputs and parameters like min_cyclomatic. Incomplete for a 4-parameter 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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds 'sorted by complexity' and 'for symbols', providing context beyond schema but not substantial new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 shows complexity metrics for symbols, sorted by complexity. The verb 'show' and resource 'complexity metrics for symbols' is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'check' or 'audit'.

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?

Usage is implied as complexity analysis, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'check' or 'audit'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria provided.

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