search_hotspots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns pagination details, summaries, and each hotspot's status, component, and vulnerability probability. It also explains status values and provides an example, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or auth requirements, which is acceptable given the 'List' verb.

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 moderately sized, front-loaded with a clear summary, and includes a useful status-value list and example. Every sentence adds relevant information, though it could be slightly more compact without losing value.

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 presence of an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers essential aspects: filters, return content, and status meanings. It does not explain paging mechanics, but those are in the schema, and the overall context is sufficient for an AI agent.

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% and each parameter has a detailed schema description. The description restates the optional filters (file, branch, PR) and provides a concrete example, but adds little beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score applies.

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 opens with 'List hotspots for a project with optional file, branch, or PR filters; returns paging + summaries,' which precisely states the verb (List), resource (hotspots), and scope (project). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_hotspot (single hotspot) and change_hotspot_status (mutation).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list security hotspots with optional filters and pagination. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the example demonstrates a typical use case, making the intended usage evident.

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