Find feedback by source file

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond that: results are ordered by line proximity, the no-arg mode ranks all stamped files by outstanding feedback, and data comes from build-plugin stamping. It does not discuss result shape or pagination, which is a modest gap for a read tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste, front-loading the data source and then the two operating modes. Every clause earns its place, and the no-arg behavior is stated immediately after the primary mode.

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?

For a six-parameter, zero-required query tool with no output schema, the description covers the main selection axes and ordering semantics well. The remaining gap is that limit and status filters are left entirely to the schema, which partially documents the other parameters but not these two.

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 a moderate 67%, so the schema carries much of the burden. The description usefully explains the file/component alternatives and the meaning of passing neither, but it says nothing about the limit or status parameters, which are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 pins down a specific resource (feedback threads tied to the source file/line stamped by the Skyelight build plugin) and clearly separates the file/component lookup mode from the no-argument hot-spot mode, which differentiates it from generic siblings like search_items. It lacks an explicit verb, opening with a noun phrase, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage conditions: pass a file or component to review threads 'before you edit it', and pass neither to get the hot spots. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer search_items or find_similar instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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