rolldev_inspector_hotspots

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

Since there are no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Stating 'Read-only: never changes the environment' is a crucial behavioral guarantee for a developer tool, preventing misuse.

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 definition is highly concise. It front-loads the core function and safety guarantee into two short, impactful sentences without any 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description provides the necessary context regarding the tool's analytical focus and safety profile, making it complete enough for an agent to confidently select it for the correct problem type.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning the structure is fully defined. The description reinforces the intent of the parameters (output format, read-only nature) but does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides for the inputs.

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 defines the scope of the tool, stating it finds 'Hotspots' specifically defined as 'slowest routes, most expensive operations and repeated calls.' This is highly specific and distinguishes it from a general trace view.

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?

It clearly defines the scenario where the tool should be used (identifying performance bottlenecks) but does not explicitly advise against using it for different, related tasks (e.g., detailed tracing vs. high-level summary).

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