hotspots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits or side effects. The description focuses on what it finds but not on what it does behaviorally.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, usage, and most parameters. The output format is mentioned, and the output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. Minor omission is the repo_path parameter.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains three of four parameters (top_n, exclude_dirs, output_format) with useful details like defaults and formats. The repo_path parameter is not explained, which is a minor gap.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: 'Find the riskiest symbols: highest coupling, complexity, and cross-file callers.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'dependencies' or 'dead_code'.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use before modifying unfamiliar code to know what to be careful around.' While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, the guidance is adequate for an agent.

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