gograph_hotspot

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

Description adds '100% local, read-only static analysis tool' with details on no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, and zero destructive modifications. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) with concrete context. No contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (behavior, usage, completeness). Every sentence is informative and front-loaded. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states it returns a prioritized list of hotspot packages, complexity counts, and caller metrics. Combined with comprehensive behavior and usage info, this fully enables correct agent invocation.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool locates code hotspots using structural call complexity and incoming dependency metrics. It distinguishes from sibling by specifying not to use for single-package metrics (use gograph_focus instead).

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?

Explicit usage contexts are given: performance audits, locating coupling hotspots, planning simplification. Also provides a specific exclusion (single-package metrics) with an alternative tool named, making it easy for an agent to decide.

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