Git Hotspots

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the time window and risk interpretation but does not describe the return format, limits, or any edge-case behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by a brief interpretation and a contextual note. Zero filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but omits the output format (e.g., list of file paths, counts, sorting), which an agent may need to consume the result. Given the tool's simplicity and single documented parameter, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 single parameter 'path' is fully documented in the schema with 'Absolute path to the repository root' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the semantics.

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 the tool identifies files changed most frequently in the last 90 days, with an explicit interpretation (high churn = high risk). It specifies the metric, time frame, and resource (files in a repo), distinguishing it from generic analysis siblings.

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 description implies a use case (identify high-churn files) and mentions SonarQube's limitation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives or when not to use it. No direct exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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