list_hotspots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's job is to add behavioral nuance. 'Bounded page' hints at pagination but does not explain cursor mechanics, default sort order, or limits. This adds some value beyond annotations but leaves significant behavioral traits unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core behavior, achieving maximal conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and several siblings, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what hotspots are in this context, how pagination works, or when to use this tool. The output schema covers return values, but the lack of usage context and parameter semantics makes the description insufficient for reliable selection and invocation.

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 mentions no parameters. It fails to clarify the meaning of sort_by enumerations (self_percent vs inclusive_percent), category filtering, or cursor pagination. Since the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, an agent would struggle to invoke 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 states the tool's action ('Return'), resource ('hotspots'), and context ('from a stored analysis'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_hotspot_details (specific details) and analyze_profile (different resource). The phrase 'bounded page' implies pagination, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. Overall, the purpose is clear but could be more precise with 'list' instead of 'Return'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hotspot_details or classify_hotspots. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The description only states what it does, leaving usage decisions to inference from the tool name and schema.

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