analyze_hotspots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that hotspots are 'bounded' and 'source-linked,' offering some context beyond annotations, but does not detail output behavior or side effects. This matches the mid-range where annotations carry the core burden.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the alternative in the second sentence. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, output schema present), and the description fully covers purpose, use case, and alternatives. With annotations declaring safety traits and an output schema defining the return structure, no additional behavior explanation is needed.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'run_or_artifact' and 'limit'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 clearly identifies the action (analyze), the resource (sampled-profile runs or artifacts), and the result (bounded source-linked hotspots). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming extract_pyperf/query_measurements as the alternative for benchmark_samples.

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 direct when-to-use guidance ('sampled-profile runs or artifacts') and an explicit exclusion ('use extract_pyperf/query_measurements for benchmark_samples instead'). This tells the agent when to prefer other tools.

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