Get Hotspots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral nuance by defining self-time and clarifying that callee time is excluded, which is a key detail beyond the tool name. It does not detail return structure or edge cases, but for a read operation, the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core output and definition; the second states the use case. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple list-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: what it returns, how the metric is defined, and a typical use case. It could mention ordering or return format, but these are strongly implied by 'top N by self-time' and the overall simplicity of the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description's phrase 'top N' loosely maps to the limit parameter but adds no semantics beyond the schema's own 'Number of hotspots to return'. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('top N functions by self-time'), and defines the key concept of self-time as 'CPU time spent directly in the function, not its callees'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like explain_function or get_profile_summary, and leaves no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to find performance bottlenecks.' This is clear contextual guidance, but it does not mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer suggest_optimizations or get_profile_summary), so it falls short of the highest bar.

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