analyze_hotspots

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

Annotations already provide strong safety signals: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no contradictory claim and contributes 'bounded' and 'source-linked' context, but it does not discuss result ordering, pagination, or other behaviors; this is acceptable because the output schema and annotations carry that weight.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and scope, then appends a necessary routing instruction that disambiguates from sibling tools.

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 a 2-parameter schema with full coverage, a rich annotation set, an output schema, and an explicit sibling-routing clause, the description is complete for its purpose. There is no missing information an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly.

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%, with both parameters already documented ('run_or_artifact' with discovery via list_runs/list_artifacts, and 'limit' with range 1-1000). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and a specific resource class ('sampled-profile runs or artifacts') with a clear qualifier ('bounded source-linked hotspots'). It also distinguishes itself from benchmark-sample analysis by naming extract_pyperf and query_measurements, making its scope easy to identify among many sibling analysis tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('sampled-profile runs or artifacts for bounded source-linked hotspots') and gives an explicit alternative for a distinct case: 'use extract_pyperf/query_measurements for benchmark_samples instead.' This is direct when/when-not guidance rather than merely implied usage.

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