Get Hotspots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and mutability profile is covered. The description adds context about relying on commit history rather than current structure, which is useful behavioral framing. But it doesn't disclose data window semantics, whether project is required in single-project mode, or result size/performance characteristics beyond what's in the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and scope, then lists the four output categories compactly and finishes with a usage note and differentiation from get_lineage. Slightly dense but no filler; each sentence adds information.

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?

With one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what the tool returns and when to call it. It lacks explicit return format details, which is a minor gap for an analytical tool where the agent may need to know what the output looks like for downstream processing.

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%, and the description adds no parameter syntax details. However, this is a zero-required-parameter tool where the schema itself carries semantics. Baseline 4 applies since no params = full schema coverage and description doesn't need to compensate.

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?

States a specific analytical verb+resource ('Project-level change-history orientation') and enumerates the four outputs: most-changed entities, low-survival thrash spots, interface freeze, no-recent-change directories. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_lineage ('one entity's story' vs 'project-wide map'), so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Provides a clear usage trigger: 'Call it after list_modules when orienting in a codebase.' It also clarifies scope versus get_lineage. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use it or mention any alternatives like get_co_change_clusters or get_coupling_metrics, which could also be relevant for change-history questions.

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