show_hotspot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is returned (rule, component, status, resolution, permission to change), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or any required permissions, leaving some ambiguity for a tool without annotation safety hints.

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 concise, with a front-loaded summary followed by useful elaboration and an example. There is slight redundancy between the first and second sentences, but overall every sentence earns its place and the structure is clear.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, provides an example, and clarifies the input key. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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 the parameter 'hotspot' is already described as 'Hotspot key to retrieve details for'. The description adds an example value but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the full hotspot payload for a specific key, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource (security hotspot). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_hotspots (search) and change_hotspot_status (change) by focusing on retrieval of a single key.

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 provides clear context: use this tool for a specific hotspot key, as shown in the example. It implies usage when the key is already known, as opposed to searching. Though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to choose appropriately.

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