Topos Refactor Suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering the key behavioral traits. The description adds that it is 'read-only' and references a documentation tool, which aligns with the annotations without contradicting them.

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 very concise: one sentence plus a cross-reference. It front-loads the core purpose and state. However, it may be too terse for conveying sufficient context about parameters and output.

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's complexity (nested parameters, enums, no output schema) and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'hotspots' are, what the tool returns, or how to use the parameters. The reference to topos_get_doc helps but is insufficient.

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%. The description does not explain any parameters (target, filepath, limit, gitnexus_dir). Without parameter descriptions, the agent cannot correctly use the tool's input.

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's purpose: 'Refactor hotspots (read-only)'. It identifies the resource (hotspots) and the action (refactor, but read-only). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing topos_get_doc for workflow details.

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 the tool is for analysis ('read-only') and guides to see 'topos_get_doc' for workflows. It suggests when to use it but does not explicitly state when not to, though the read-only nature and sibling names (e.g., topos_begin_refactor) provide some context.

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