generate_hotspot_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain that this is a read-only operation (generating a map based on git history), nor does it mention any prerequisites like git availability or project state. The description lacks details on side effects or permissions needed.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameters are listed in a structured format (Args section), making it easy to read. However, the Turkish-only description may be a barrier for some users, but it remains concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which explains return values), the description does not mention important context such as that it requires git history, that it is a read-only operation, or how the hotspot map is computed. The complexity is moderate, and a more complete description would include these details.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by listing the two parameters with brief explanations: 'Proje kök dizini' for path and 'Gösterilecek hotspot sayısı' for top_n. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, but the explanations are minimal and do not describe data types or allowed values.

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 it generates a code change heat map based on git blame, using a specific verb and resource. The name 'generate_hotspot_map' aligns well with this purpose, and it distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools like 'generate_architecture_diagram' by focusing on code changes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only explains what the tool does, without any context about its appropriate application.

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