get_hottest_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: the exclusion of children from CPU time, aggregation across the entire session, and the specific output metrics. This goes beyond what the schema provides, although it does not discuss potential performance impacts or edge cases.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core functionality, and every sentence provides valuable information. There is no redundancy or filler; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the return metrics (total self ms, average per render, percentage of total profile time), which covers the main output expectations. The scope and intended use are clear. A minor omission is the lack of explicit output format, but it is sufficient for a tool with only two parameters and a simple query.

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%, with both parameters already described in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond acknowledging the 'top N' concept and the profile path; it relies on the schema for parameter details, 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 clearly states it returns the top N React components ranked by self CPU time, explicitly excluding children, and lists the metrics included. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like find_spurious_renders or trace_render_cascade, which target different aspects of rendering behavior.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use to find which components are the most expensive to render, regardless of cause.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks a full when-to-use/alternatives contrast.

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