find_hotspots

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the ranking metric (caller count) and that results are ordered by dependency weight, which is real value. However, it omits scope (whole project vs. a file), ordering guarantees, how ties are broken, and whether test/vendored symbols are excluded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical metric definition is the most useful part and is placed early. It is arguably too terse for a graph-analysis tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should say what the returned entries look like and what 'limit' controls. Neither is addressed, so an agent knows the concept but not enough to call it confidently or interpret results.

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?

There is one parameter, 'limit', with zero schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot tell whether 'limit' caps returned rows, truncates traversal depth, or is a top-N cutoff, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation 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 defines a specific analysis resource — symbols ranked by highest caller count — which is more than the name alone conveys. It implicitly separates itself from find_callers (callers of one symbol) by framing the result as a global ranking of 'most depended-on symbols', though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'where changes ripple furthest', which suggests refactoring-risk or impact triage. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of which sibling (impact_analysis, find_callers, project_graph) to prefer for adjacent questions.

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