Detect complex and long functions, large files, high-PageRank symbols, and import cycles to prioritize refactoring.
Most complex and longest functions, largest files, key symbols by PageRank, import cycles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires permissions, how it computes results, or any other behavioral trait. It only lists output categories.
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 short, front-loaded list of hotspot types, so it is concise. However, it is a sentence fragment rather than a structured statement, and it omits necessary context, making it under-specified rather than optimally 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description still lacks essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what the limit parameter controls. It provides only a partial view of the tool's purpose, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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 schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. With no other source of meaning, the parameter's purpose and effect are entirely undocumented.
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 lists the categories of hotspots (complex functions, large files, PageRank symbols, import cycles), which conveys the tool's focus. However, it lacks a clear verb or resource statement (e.g., 'Find' or 'List'), leaving the action ambiguous. It is more specific than a tautology but does not fully distinguish from siblings like repo_overview.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no context on when this tool is preferable to other analysis tools. The description only states what it returns, not when an agent should invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.