get_xdebug_hotspots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the tool is a 'stub' and 'not available', which is critical behavioral information beyond the basic action. It does not detail what happens on invocation, but the unavailability warning is the most important trait.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the operation and immediately adds the availability caveat. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides the essential purpose and a clear availability constraint. It lacks return-value information, but since the tool is flagged as unavailable, no further invocation detail is necessary for selection.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by tying hotspots to 'a request', which loosely maps to requestId, but does not explain limit or format beyond 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 identifies the operation ('Get Xdebug hotspots') and the target resource ('for a request'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_xdebug_profile, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast a sibling.

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 explicitly states 'not available in Clockwork', which serves as a strong when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not suggest an alternative tool or provide positive usage conditions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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