gograph_hotspot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces with 'Read-only; no side effects' and adds crucial behavioral context: prerequisite of a graph file, the effect of include_tests parameter on ranking (test helpers dominating), and the default behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single paragraph but well-structured with clear logical sections: purpose, prerequisite, safety, parameter descriptions, usage guidelines, and return format. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Appropriate length for the information conveyed.

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 no output schema, the description specifies what is returned ('ranked list of function names with fan-in count and package location'). It covers prerequisites, parameter behavior, usage guidelines, and return format. For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, this is thoroughly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance: explains the default for `top` (10) and that 0 returns all, and elaborates on `include_tests` with the rationale for its default exclusion. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Rank functions by incoming call count (fan-in) to identify the most-depended-on symbols.' It uses a specific verb ('rank') and resource ('functions by fan-in'), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing alternative tools (gograph_focus, gograph_coupling, gograph_complexity).

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?

Contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, naming specific alternative tools for different contexts. Also provides a clear prerequisite: requires .gograph/graph.json and the command to build it. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus its siblings.

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