find_indirection_hotspots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (worst offenders, ranked, full call chains) and the analytical approach (tracing via depth). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data access permissions are needed, or any rate-limiting/performance implications.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and output, then adds a brief use case. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: it explains the tool's goal, the type of output, and the analytical scope. The only minor gap is lacking details on the output structure (e.g., what fields are in the call chain), but the schema descriptions and general output statement are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The tool description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides. All parameters (skip, take, maxDepth, includeTests, minDirectCallers, maxChainsPerOffender) are well-documented in the schema, and the description focuses on the output and purpose.

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 finds symbols heavily accessed through multiple layers of indirection (A → B → C), with output ranked by score and full call chains. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_call_hierarchy which focus on direct relationships.

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 explicitly identifies the use case 'identifying hidden coupling and deeply wrapped dependencies', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, missing an opportunity to differentiate further from siblings.

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