find_hotspots

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, or required permissions. The term 'Rank' implies a non-destructive query, but explicit confirmation is missing.

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, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. However, the use of vertical bars and parentheses makes it slightly cryptic, warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a ranked list of function names with scores). It also omits behavioral details like that it is read-only, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by noting that 'complexity' applies to all languages while 'allocation' and 'performance' are Java-specific, which is not captured in the schema.

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 ranks functions by hotspot kind, listing three specific categories. It uses a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('functions by hotspot kind'), distinguishing it from diverse siblings like add_field_to_model or capture_list.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use. While the kind parameter suggests use cases, no guidance on exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools is provided.

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