list_hotspots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and discloses key behaviors: query texts are normalized with placeholder literals, and the ranking is based on frequency x cost. It explicitly notes that placeholders are not real instructions, for safety. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects.

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 with two compact paragraphs. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional context about normalized queries is essential without being verbose.

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 is present, so return values are covered. The description captures the core purpose and important caveats, but it lacks parameter-level details and does not elaborate on how limit or min_calls affect the results. For a relatively simple tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'profile', 'limit', or 'min_calls'. While the parameter names and defaults hint at their roles, 'profile' is ambiguous and no parameter-specific guidance is provided, so the agent must infer from names alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool ranks queries by total execution time (frequency x cost), which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself as step 1 (IDENTIFY) of the verification loop, setting it apart from sibling tools like explain_query and find_dead_weight.

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 frames when to use this tool by labeling it as the IDENTIFY step, indicating it shows where time goes rather than how to fix it. It also warns that query texts are normalized and placeholders must not be treated as instructions, providing essential usage guidance.

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