file_hotspots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is heuristic and not a defect detector, which is useful. Yet it does not mention side effects, return format, or operational details like git requirements, leaving several behavioral aspects implicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, and includes a clarifying caveat. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 with only two parameters. The description conveys purpose, heuristic nature, and a limitation, which is sufficient for a basic heuristic tool. However, the lack of output schema and annotations means it does not specify return format or error conditions, so it is not fully complete.

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?

The schema describes cwd as 'Local repository path. No network access is used.' but leaves limit without description. The tool description does not explicitly explain limit, though the phrase 'most often' implies a count. Thus it adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Find') and a clear resource ('files that appear most often in recent repository history'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like repository_summary and recent_changes. The added caveat that it is a heuristic for review focus further sharpens its identity.

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?

It states the tool is for review focus and explicitly says it is not a defect detector, giving a clear when-not direction. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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