imports_hotspots

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about ranking by connectivity but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data freshness or limitations. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not extensively.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy.

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?

While the output schema covers return values, the description does not specify what 'most connected' means (e.g., incoming vs outgoing imports). The lack of required parameters in the schema could lead to confusion about whether projectId and projectRef are needed. More context would improve completeness.

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 purpose of projectId, projectRef, or limit. The names and constraints imply project identification, but without explicit documentation, the agent lacks clarity on how to set these parameters correctly.

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 states the tool ranks the most connected files in the import graph, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling import tools like imports_cycles and imports_deps by focusing on connectivity ranking.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like imports_deps or imports_impact. The description does not provide context for when this tool is appropriate or when to choose another.

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