get_performance_hotspots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON object with an array of hotspots, timing data, and expansion ids. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or safety profile (e.g., read-only nature). For a retrieval tool, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 very concise: two sentences with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and returns format.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and 8 siblings, the description covers core functionality but lacks details like sorting field, limit on 'top', and how parameters affect results. The return structure hint is helpful but incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it fails to explain the purpose of subsystem or wallTime nuances. No extra value provided.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'sorted list of top performance hotspots', and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool expand_performance_hotspot by directing the agent to use that for drill-down.

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 provides a clear hint to use expand_performance_hotspot for drill-down, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other siblings like get_heap_data or attach. The context is implied but not exhaustive.

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