get_hotspot_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns: 'bounded dominant paths, classifications, and limits,' which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or 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?

Given that the tool has annotations, an output schema, and only three parameters, the description conveys the essential behavior (single hotspot, bounded paths, classifications, limits). It does not explain 'classifications' or 'limits' in detail, but the output schema likely provides that information, so the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description hints at 'bounded' paths, which likely relates to call_path_limit, but it does not explicitly describe analysis_id or hotspot_id, nor does it clarify the meaning of 'limits.' This leaves the agent under-informed about parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one hotspot'), and further clarifies the scope with 'bounded dominant paths, classifications, and limits.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_hotspots (plural) and get_call_paths, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'one hotspot' implies this tool is for retrieving details for a single hotspot, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_hotspots or get_call_paths. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the usage is only implied.

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