hotspot_debt

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the data provenance (git log --numstat), the ranking mechanism and that the formula is returned in the reply, and the per-1000-lines normalization. It does not mention that the operation is read-only or that scanning full history can be expensive on large repos, which is the main remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core definition and ending with the hard prerequisite. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical about markers and --numstat is justified because it defines what is counted. Minor redundancy between the opening and closing framing of churn.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the return payload, and it correctly notes the scoring formula appears in the reply. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves input formats and defaults undocumented, so an agent must guess how to set `since`, `limit`, and `markers`.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does. It adds meaning for `since` (the churn window the commit/line counts cover), `markers` (the debt markers scanned alongside lint/type suppressions), and `repo` (must be a git repository), but says nothing about the accepted `since` format (default "1y"), the `limit` default of 15, or how a repo is specified.

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 names a specific analytical artifact: files where debt items (markers plus lint/type suppressions) coincide with churn (commits and lines changed from git log --numstat), ranked by a composite score. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like debt_summary (aggregate) or stale_todos (age-based) without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it does not reach a 5.

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 the prerequisite "Needs a git repository", which usefully tells the agent a required environment. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over debt_summary or large_files_and_complexity, nor when not to use it (e.g. non-git workspaces, very large histories). Usage is implied by the ranked-hotspot framing rather than stated.

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