Get Hot Commits

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

The verbs 'rank' and 'show' clearly indicate a read-only analysis operation, and 'inside each spike' discloses the output grouping behavior. With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and this description reasonably conveys sorting and nesting behavior, though it stops short of defining the cost metric or error behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence immediately states the core action ('Rank the most expensive commits') and then adds the nested output detail. There is no filler or repeated information from the schema.

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?

The schema fully covers parameters and the description states the tool's purpose and output grouping. However, there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not specify the exact return shape or how 'expensive' is measured, so the agent must infer some details.

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 all four parameters, including defaults and semantics for priorityLevel. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the 'loaded render profile' context for profileId, so the 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 uses specific action verbs 'rank' and 'show' with clearly identified resources: 'most expensive commits' and 'top components inside each spike.' This makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like get_slow_components (component-focused) and capture/load tools (setup-focused).

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 phrase 'in a loaded render profile' conveys that the tool requires an existing profile, implying it should be used after load_render_profile. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_slow_components or get_render_summary, and no exclusions are given.

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