heatmap

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot provide: the data comes from git history via .mailmap names, index.md and log.md are always excluded because every write touches them, single_author uses all history rather than the window, and limit=0 means unlimited. This is additive, though pagination and result size remain unaddressed.

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?

There is no wasted concept, but the text is a dense block of semicolon-delimited fragments that reads like release notes rather than guidance. The main purpose is front-loaded, yet the output-section list and the scoping note are jumbled together, which slows comprehension for an agent parsing it once.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return shape (files, bundles, authors, single_author) and flags the bus-factor semantics of single_author. Combined with three optional parameters and a safe read-only annotation set, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, with only the `bundle` parameter's scoping behavior left genuinely unresolved.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain `days` (the window for commit changes) and `limit` (limit=0 lists all, with a listed default ordering of 'most first'), but `bundle` is only obliquely implied by 'like lint ... every bundle' and it is never stated whether passing a bundle narrows the output. Two of three parameters are clarified; one remains ambiguous.

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 names the resource (concepts and their authors derived from git history) and enumerates the output sections: files, bundles, authors, single_author. It is clearly not a search, lint, or status tool, though the verb is implied rather than stated (it 'reports' a heatmap). The telegraphic phrasing makes the agent work a bit to parse the purpose.

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?

'Like lint, it covers where the user is (at the knowledgebase root, every bundle)' is a useful analogy for scoping and implies when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `search`, `list`, or `provenance`, nor any exclusions beyond index.md/log.md being omitted. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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