scan_repository_hotspots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints that refresh is related to background scan progress, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what refresh triggers, whether scans are asynchronous, or what permissions are required.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is cryptic and refers to a snapshot id absent from the input schema. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than being efficient communication.

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?

This is a nine-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description does not explain the parameters, the scan behavior, the ranking output, or the relationship to background tasks, so it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 input schema has nine parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It briefly mentions refresh, but ignores path, rule, view, coverage, priority, limit, offset, and project, and it references a 'snapshot id' that does not appear in 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 states a specific operation pair, 'Rank and page findings,' but 'findings' is vague and the description never mentions repository scanning, hotspots, or code health. It gives no differentiation from sibling tools such as analyze_function_health or get_repository_report, leaving the actual resource ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. The only usage-like statement concerns refresh and a snapshot id, neither of which explains the tool's selection context or prerequisites.

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