find_hotspots

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals behavioral traits: includes methods without perf data, details risk calculation, and specifies sorting order. However, it does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only or if it requires special permissions.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, logic, args, and returns. It is reasonably concise, though the return format could have been omitted if an output schema were provided.

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 description fully covers the tool's behavior, parameter, and output format. Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return fields and sorting. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds crucial meaning: 'The logical name of the indexed repository.' This clarifies the expected value beyond the bare schema field name.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Return methods ranked by composite risk: complexity_hint x p99.' It distinguishes from siblings like find_complexity_hints by combining complexity and latency into a composite risk score.

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 explains the ranking logic and what methods are included (those with and without perf data). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as find_complexity_hints or find_callees.

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